A companion to classical texts

aml as chee wees δ 4.5“... sens
ΩΣ

a nee bin em en
eters eh Matne

a eure, Beate!

Deen

ee !

= ἐν ΜΕ

᾿ ἣν von . Ss a

> oe) a=

PLATE J

Papyrus PLANT

(Cyperus papyrus)

THE

A COMPANION

TO

MmeASotGAL TEXTS

Be av eas ls “I. A.

Fellow and Tutor of St. John Baptist College, Oxford

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1013

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
LONDON EDINBURGH = GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY

HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY

6s ὁ oo.
= ef 9 Rie δὲ cae ὦ
ς « ε © ee @ οὐ κα 2
a i oo © .ω,),
© Ὦ eo .
2 B® es © “σε
@ .@ @ -9 408).8—6 “4 Φ 5,
etc ΔΝ © ρα é
ce @e « ε ee 6. 2. >
. " ο ουω.δ 8. ὦ
" ee δ et eee eke μὴ τ τ᾿ ©
bk Hk « # "Gc e toece eo fe®

PREPACE

THE more readable parts of this book have been de-
livered from time to time as lectures to the few among
my pupils who care for such things. They are published,
together with certain chapters which cannot claim to be
easy reading, in the hope that the whole book will prove
useful to a wider circle of students,—especially to those
who, without wishing to become specialists in textual
criticism, yet find that textual problems inevitably enter
into their studies. Many people tend to regard textual
criticism as a disease. But it is neither a disease nor
a science, but simply the application of common sense
to a class of problems which beset all inquirers whose
evidence rests upon the authority of manuscript documents.
And I shall be well content if I have succeeded in doing
for the ordinary student of the classical and mediaeval
writers what has been done so admirably for students of
the New Testament by Sir Frederic Kenyon’s Handbook
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament and by
Eberhard Nestle’s /utroduction to the Textual Criticism
of the Greek New Testament.

The author of a manual of this kind is necessarily
carried into many departments of learning where the
credentials that he can exhibit are more than doubtful.
Though I have endeavoured wherever possible to go back
to the original authorities and have rarely quoted what
I have not been able to verify, yet in a book which deals
with so many questions of controversy and contains such
a mass of references I am well aware that many errors
may have escaped my notice. I shall be fortunate if my
readers will point them out to me (if possible without
undue brutality) in order that I may correct them when

473 a2

iv PREFACE

I have the opportunity. I have been saved from many
by the kindness of friends who have read my proofs or
who have allowed me to seek their advice upon points of
difficulty. Among such who have assisted me I am bound
to mention with especial gratitude Mr. Ingram Bywater,
formerly Regius Professor of Greek in Oxford, Professor
Hunt, the President of Trinity, Mr. Ross of Oriel, Mr.
Garrod of Merton, and Mr. W. H. Stevenson of my own
College. The ninth chapter of the book would perhaps
have been the most useful if I had been able to render it
as complete as I could wish. But to do this is beyond the
powers of one man, at any rate until the history of the various
collections of manuscripts in Europe has been written with
the thoroughness with which the great librarians at Paris
have narrated the history of their own unrivalled collections.
Meantime I hope that my own imperfect sketch may prove
useful until it is superseded by a more exhaustive work.

I have to thank the Syndics of the Cambridge University
Press for permission to reproduce Plate III from Clark’s
Care of Books, Messrs. Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner ἃ Co.
for permission to reproduce Plate IV from Mr. Falconer
Madan’s Books in Manuscript, the Secretary of the Kgl.
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften for permission
to reproduce Plate V from the S7tzungsberichte der Kéniglich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, and the author-
ities of the Bibliotheque Nationale for permission to
reproduce Plate VI from their facsimile of the Paris Livy.

June 24, 1913.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER I

PAGES
Tue Ancient Boox . ᾿ : ᾿ 3 ‘ é I-21

The form of the ancient book (1)— Tue Rott. Discoveries at Herculaneum
in 1752 (2) — In Egypt (3) — Papyrus introduced into Greece (4--5) — Method
of manufacturing Charta (5-6)— Size of the Roll (6-7) —Its influence upon
the arrangement of literary works (7-10) — Method of producing editions of
ancient works (10-11)—The length of the line in Prose and Verse (11-
12) — Punctuation and other aids to the reader (13) — The furniture of the Roll
(14) —TueECopex. Belongs to Rome rather than to Greece (15) Comes into
use at Rome in 1st cent. a.p. The evidence of Martial (16)—In common
use in the 4th cent. (18) — Effect of the transference of texts from Rolls to
Codices (18-20), :

CHAPTER ΤΙ

Tue Text oF GREEK AUTHORS IN ANCIENT TIMES. 22-52

The conditions under which texts were transmitted (22) — Distinction to be
drawn between Greek texts and Latin texts (24-5) — Survey of the history
of Greek texts. I. THe Pre-ALEXANDRINE PerRiop. The earliest Greek
literature in Ionia (26) — Attic tragedy creates a public of readers (27) — The
book trade at Athens in the 5th cent. B. c. (27) — Dangers of privately made —
copies (28-9) — The Petrie papyrus of the Phaedo (29) — Growth of philology
and criticism in the 4th cent. B.c. at Pergamum and Alexandria (31) — II. THE
ALEXANDRINES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE Successors. The πίνακες of Callimachus
(32) — Alexandrine κανόνες (32) — Methods of the Alexandrine scholars (33-
7) — Defects of the work of their successors (39)—III. THe Periop ΕΚΟΜ
THE REIGN OF HADRIAN TO THE QTH CENT. A.D. The incipient decay of
scholarship (40) —the range of readers becomes severely contracted (40) —
Growth of selections, commentaries and paraphrases (41-3)—IV. From THE
THIRTEENTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. The renaissance of studies under
the Palaeologi (43-4) — Its influence upon Greek texts (44) — Condition of the ——
problems of modern criticism (45)— Distinction to be drawn between ‘ protec-
ted’ and ‘unprotected’ texts (45-6)— Text of Theognis (46) —of Pindar
(46-7) — Competition of the Alexandrine and ‘ proletariat’ texts (47) — The
work of the Alexandrines on poetic texts more stable than their work on
prose texts (48-9) — Text of Demosthenes (49-51) — of Euripides (52).

CHAPTER III

Tue Text or Latin AutHors ΙΝ AncIENT TIMES. 53-69

Early methods of producing books at Rome (53) — Influence of Pergamene and

Alexandrine scholarship (54)—Growth of Roman scholarship (56) — Revival

of the older literature in the time of Sulla (56) —leads to the production of
΄

vi

Tz

Tue History or TEXTS DURING THE PERIOD OF THE

CONTENTS

‘vulgate ’ texts (57) — Condition of Roman scholarship in the last century of the
Republic (57-8) — M. Valerius Probus (58) — History of the text of Vergil’s
works (59-61) — Christianity and profane literature (62) — Editions of the
ancient writers produced from the 4th to the 6th cent. A. Ὁ. (63)—Movement
begun by pagan aristocrats but continued by Christians (64) — Cassiodorus
(65-6) — Isidore of Seville (67-8) —A ‘concordat’ between the Church
and profane learning (68).

CHAPTER IV

ΗῈ History ΟΕ Latin TEXTS FROM THE AGE OF
CHARLEMAGNE TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE . 70-93

The attitude of the Church towards learning (71) —the seven Liberal Arts
(72) — the distinction between Artes and Auctores (72-3) — Classical studies
in the West: I. THe IrtsH Missionaries (74) — their influence on Britain
(74) —on the Continent (75) —Some causes of their failure (75) —II. THe
Ancio-Saxons in the 8th cent. (75)—Their work in the empire of
Charlemagne (75) — Charlemagne’s object in becoming the patron of
learning (76) — Alcuin (76) — Servatus Lupus (77) —Gerbert of Aurillac
(78) — The effect of the Carolingian revival upon Germany (78) — Learning
destroyed by asceticism (79) —the Cluniacs and other orders (79) — France
in the r1th cent. (80) — Scholasticism (80) — the school at Chartres (81) —
Hildebert of Tours (81) — The struggle between scholasticism and classicism
(81) —Learning in Italy and Spain (82) — Methods of the mediaeval scholars
(83-5) — Alcuin’s instructions to copyists (86 -ξ Orthography (87) — Dith-
culties which confronted scholars (887- The preservation of Latin writers is
largely due to the Carolingians (89) — The introduction of the Caroline hand-
writing (89) <The soundest texts are those attested by MSS. of the gth and
roth centuries (90) — Later corruptions (go) — Illustrated by the text of
Seneca, WV. Q. (gt) — Dante as evidence for the state of learning in the 13th
cent. (92-3).

CHAPTER. ¥

ITALIAN RENAISSANCE ; : : . 94-107

Italy and the ancient learning (94-6) — The only country in which the laity
were educated (96) — This is the explanation of the Renaissance (97) — Hu-
manism (98) — Classical writings were of practical use (99) — Difficulties
of scholars and consequent defects in their work (100) — The untrustworthi-
ness of copyists (101) — Rash emendation of texts, e. g. the work of Tommaso
Seneca (102) — Quattrocento forgeries (102) —Salutati on the difficulties
which hindered scholarship (104) + Condition of Greek texts (105)}— Marcus
Musurus’ edition of Hesychius (105-6)— The great merits of some
Renaissance scholars, e. g. Politian (106) — Good readings in MSS. of this
period often due to clever conjectures (107).

CONTENTS vil

CHAPTER. VI

RECENSION . : ; : . 108-149

The scientific criticism of documents (108) — Difficul'y in testing the authen-
ticity of a document in early times (109)— The history of the Rule of St.
Benedict (109) — The exposure of the False Decretals (110) —the critical spirit
of Protestantism leads to a closer examination of documents (111) — Pape-
broch’s edition of the Acta Sanctorum (111) — Mabillon’s answer in the De
Re Diplomatica (112) — Growth of the science of Palaeography (113) — the
work of Maffei (113) — Difficulties arising from the dearth of accessible ~
MSS. (113) — Efforts of the scholars of the 16th cent. to discover MSS.-
(114) —Gelenius (114) — The effect of the Wars of Religion in France
(115) —collectors and scholars (116) — Carrio and Modius (116) — Vulgate
texts constructed by H. Stephanus (117) — Scholarship in France, Germany,
and Holland in the 17th cent. (117-18) — J. F. Gronovius (119) — Bent-
ley (120) — F. A. Wolf (122) —I. Bekker (123) — Karl Lachmann (125) — His
work upon Lucretius (126) - The classification of MSS. (128-33)— The main
types of direct tradition (134) —1. Texts depending upon a single MS.
(134) - 2. Texts preserved in a number of MSS. which present a uni-
form’ tradition (134-7)— 3. The tradition follows two or more divergent
lines (137) —{Indirect evidence for a text (140)— Quotations, imitations,
ἄς (141-4)—Scholia, commentaries, lexica (144) — Translations (146-8)
— changes effected by a careful recension (149).

CHAPTER VII

EMENDATION : ' : : , : . 150-198

Conjectural emendation (150)—must be tested by (a) Transcriptional
probability (151) —and (6) Intrinsic probability (151-3) — Classification of
the errors of copyists (153) — Visual and psychological errors (154) — Most
errors are psychological (155) — Since scribes tend to copy words rather than
letters (156)—4Criticism of Ribbeck’s views upon possible interchanges between
letters (156).

I. CoNFUSIONS AND ATTEMPTS MADE TO REMEDY THEM.
— 1. Confusion of similar letters (158-9).
- 2. Misinterpretation of contractions (162-7o)—Traube’s discovery of the
importance of the two kinds of contraction (163).
3. Mistranscription through general resemblance (170-2).
. (a) Wrong combination or separation (172) ; (δ) Wrong punctuation (173).
5. Assimilation of words and of terminations: i.e. False Accommodation of
construction (174).
6. Transposition (a of letters and syllables (176° ; (6) of words and passages
(177-80).
. Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and of Latin into Greek (180).
. Confusion of numerals (180).

--

on

Vili CONTENTS

9. Confusion in Proper Names,
το. Mistakes due to changes in pronunciation (183).
11. Substitution of synonyms or of familiar words for unfamiliar (193). |
12. New spellings substituted for old (186).
13. Interpolation (186) — monkish interpolations (188).
II. Omrssions.
14. Haplography (189).
15. Lipography (190).
III. Appirions,

16. Repetition from or anticipation of the immediate (i. e. Dittography, p. 191)
or neighbouring context (192-3).
— 17. Insertions from the margin. Adscripts, &c. (193-7).
18. Conflated readings (197).
1g. Additions due to the influence of kindred writings (198).

CHAPTER VIII

— MS. AvuTHoRITIES FOR THE TEXT OF THE CHIEF
CrLassicAL WRITERS . : : ; . 199-285

CHAPTER? TX

_~ THE NoMENCLATURE OF MSS., wiTH THE NAMES OF
FORMER POSSESSORS . ; : : , . 286-357

INDEX ear? : : : : : : . 359-363

LIST. OF > PEAPES

I. THe Papyrus Prant (Cyperus papyrus) : , Frontispiece

II. Homer, Jiad 11. 695-709 (Bodleian papyrus
2nd cent, A.D.) : : . To face page 6

III. A GREEK PHYSICIAN READING . : : ᾿ οἰ ΟΝ 8
ΙΝ. ScripE aT WorK . 2 : : A : : er 5:
Ν. ΚΕΟΘΊΝΕΝΒΙ5 VATICANUS GRAEC. 173 ‘ : π᾿ -.--
VI. PaRIsINUS 5730 . ‘ : : Σ ; )

between pp. 86 and 87
VII. Vaticanus REGINENSIS 762 ]

CHAPTER 1
THE ANCIENT BOOK

DurinG the greater part of their history the texts of the
classical writers have been transmitted in copies made by hand
upon rolls or upon codices. These texts have been mutilated
and defaced by the laxity or ignorance of scribes in every age,
and it is the object of this book to show how far it has been
possible for scholars to get behind this corruption in the
endeavour to recover the autograph, i.e. the text as originally
written by the author.

It must not be forgotten that many of these losses and injuries
were due not to the scribe, but to the conditions under which he
worked, and in particular to the size, shape, and material of the
book in which he wrote. It is necessary, therefore, at the outset
to examine briefly the history of the development of the ancient
book in order to see how far the changes which it has undergone
have affected the fortunes of the texts which it has preserved.
For the present purpose a roll will be assumed to be made of
papyrus and a codex to be made of vellum or of paper.’ It is
true that vellum rolls are found in use in the earliest period and
that codices were made of papyrus in the third century a.p. and
later, but such combinations of shape and material were never
more than unsatisfactory experiments and never came into
common use. (An instance of a vellum roll can be seen in
Vaticano-Palatinus 405.)

1 Paper, made of flax and similar plants (never of cotton), is an invention of
the Chinese. The Arabs learnt the secret of its manufacture from Chinese
prisoners in Samarcand in a.p. 751. Its use spread with the expansion of the
Arab dominion, and it is employed for Greek MSS, in the tenth century, for
Latin in the thirteenth. The name ‘bombycinus’, which was once thought
to mean ‘cotton-paper’, is probably a popular confusion for βαμβύκινος, 1. 6.
‘made at Bambyke’ near Samarcand. (v. Karabacek, Preface to Papyrus
Erzherzog Rainer, 1894.)

473 B

2 | | THE ANCIENT BOOK

- ‘The codex derives its shape and name from the wooden block
split into several writing tablets connected by hinges (Sen. de
Breu. Vit. 13. 4 ‘plurium tabularum contextus caudex apud
antiquos uocatur’). Its shape and the beauty and durability
of the vellum from which its leaves were usually made would
seem to mark it as the most convenient form of book. Yet there
is no doubt that it was never really popular in ancient times.
It was adopted by the Roman world for reasons that will be
described later. It is evident that Greece ignored it as long as
she could, since the term τεῦχος, which is the only equivalent for
the Latin codex, is not found before the Christian era. For
nearly a thousand years after literature began in Greece (600 Β.6.--
A.D. 300) the papyrus roll was without a rival. It was light
and easy to handle, while its dull brown colour was pleasanter
to readers of normal eyesight than the white surface of vellum.'

Till the end of the eighteenth century little was known about
this form of the ancient book. No roll made of papyrus and
containing a classical text was accessible to scholars, and hence
it was impossible to form an estimate of the conditions under
which texts had been transmitted in the earliest times. In 1752
a large number of charred rolls containing the works of Philo-
demus, a minor philosopher of the Epicurean school, were
discovered in the course of excavations at Herculaneum, where
they had remained buried since the eruption of Vesuvius in
A.D. 79.

The discovery, however, of an unknown writer threw little
light upon the condition of the texts of the great classical
authors in the first century and could have no effect upon
textual criticism. More valuable discoveries were to come from
a different and unexpected source. In 1821 a papyrus copy of
a portion of the Ziad (the Bankes papyrus) was discovered in
Egypt, and an equally valuable fragment (the Harris papyrus)

1 Galen (περὶ χρείας μορίων Kiihn iii. 776) says that the whiteness of
vellum was injurious to the eyes. Quintilian (De /nstit. x. 3. 31) recommends
membranae rather than wax tablets to authors who have weak sight, but only to
serve as the rough draft and not for reading.

THE ANCIENT BOOK 3

was discovered in 1849. Since then papyri, fragmentary or
complete, have been found in increasing abundance in the
district of the Fayoum to the south of Cairo and at Ashmunen
(Hermopolis) and Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus) in Upper Egypt
south of the Fayoum. A convenient summary of the literary
texts discovered up to 1897 will be found in C. Haberlin,
Griechische Papyri (Leipzig, 1897).

These discoveries have contributed a mass of evidence as to
the condition of ancient classical texts throughout a period
ranging from the end of the fourth century B.c. down to the
-seventh century A.D. This evidence is even now hardly assimi-
lated and has often increased rather than simplified the prob-
lems of textual criticism in many writers. Unfortunately, the
new knowledge has been almost entirely confined to Greek
Literature and has not been balanced by any equivalent
gain in Latin. In the tombs and rubbish-heaps of the Greek
settlers in Egypt it is only by a rare chance’ that fragments of
Roman authors are found. Whether a scientific exploration
of Herculaneum is likely to repair this loss must still remain
uncertain. If the discoveries which have already been made
there give the promise of a rich harvest, they also show that
none but charred rolls, which are exceedingly difficult to un-
fold and to decipher, are likely to have survived, since it is only
through the carbonization which they suffered in the conflagra-
tion of the town that they have been rendered immune from the
effects of damp and decay.

In the present chapter we shall consider the history of the
Roll, the conditions which its shape and size imposed upon its
contents, the reasons for its gradual disappearance, and also
attempt to estimate the influence which the change from Roll to
Codex may have exerted upon classical texts.

Βύβλος or πάπῦρος is a kind of reed (Cyperus papyrus) native to
Abyssinia, Nubia, and other regions of the Upper Nile. At an

1 e.g. Oxyrhynchus Livy; Vergil, Oxyrh. 31, 1098, 1099; Cicero, Oxyrh.

1097, Rylands 61, Mélanges Chatelain, p. 442; Sallust, Oxyrh. 884, Pap. Soc.
It. ττο.

B2

4 THE ANCIENT BOOK

early date it was introduced into Lower Egypt, where it
grew to perfection, especially in the region of the Delta. The
plant is now extinct except in the countries to which it originally
belonged. A different species (Cyperus syriacus) was introduced
into Sicily in the tenth century by the Mohammedan Arabs and
still grows somewhat precariously in the river Anapus.

Papyrus is found in use in Egypt as a material for writing
at an exceedingly early date. One of the earliest documents
is an account book of King Assa which is dated 3580-3536 B.c.
For a long time this material remained peculiar to Egypt.
Shortly before Io000 B.c., however, there appears to have been
some movement in the hitherto arrested civilization of Syria
which issued in the invention of a more convenient system of
writing. This was the Alphabet, which under various forms is
still in use throughout the Western world.

The use of this alphabet spread rapidly from the nearer East
to the countries of the Mediterranean basin and created a demand
for a more convenient material for writing than the rolls of
leather, tablets of clay, and other substances which had long been
employed. To this period must be assigned the introduction
among the peoples of the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean of
rolls made of lighter materials, such as papyrus, or the inner
tissues of similar plants.’

The history of the introduction of the roll into Greece is not
fully known. It is plain, however, from the fact that several of
the technical terms connected with writing are of Eastern
origin, that the materials for writing, as well as the alphabet,
came to Greece from the East. Βύβλος itself is derived from the
Phoenician town Byblos (Gebal): δέλτος, the wooden tablet which
is the earliest material for writing, is allied to the Semitic deleth,
‘a door’. Χάρτης, the Greek word for papyrus-paper, is
undoubtedly foreign, but its origin is uncertain. It is natural
to attribute the introduction of the papyrus roll into Greece to

1 The Report of Wenamon (under Rameses XII, 1150 8. c.) mentions the

importation of 500 rolls of papyrus from Egypt to Byblos. Breasted, Ancient
Records of Egypt, iv. 284.

THE ANCIENT BOOK 5

the intellectual upheaval which began in Ionia in the seventh
century and spread rapidly across to continental Greece in the
sixth. A demand must have arisen for copies of literary works
which were too long to be conveniently reproduced on the
wooden tablets or leathern rolls which had hitherto been in use.
The intimate relations which existed between Egypt and Greece
from early times render it extremely probable that ifa new and
more convenient material for writing was in demand, the papyrus
roll from Egypt could not have been overlooked. It has been
held, however, on the authority of Pliny,’ that the rolls in use
in Greece before the time of Alexander must have been made of
other materials than papyrus. Herodotus, too, has been taken to
corroborate Pliny, since in his account of the use made of papyrus
in Egypt (ii. 92) he omits to make any mention of its use for
paper. But Herodotus’s silence may equally well be interpreted
as meaning that the use of papyrus for this purpose was so well
known in Greece that there was no need to state that it was used
for the same purpose in Egypt. And the fact that an Attic
inscription of 407 B.c. (C. 1. A. i. 324) refers to the purchase of
two sheets of papyrus for two drachmas four obols, whatever be
the interpretation put upon this apparently enormous price, is
sufficient to throw the gravest doubts on the accuracy of Pliny’s
statement.

The best description of the papyrus plant is found in Theo-
phrastus, Hist. Plant. iv. 8. 3 φύεται δὲ ὃ πάπυρος οὐκ ἐν βάθει τοῦ
ὕδατος ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον ἐν δύο πήχεσιν, ἐνιαχοῦ δὲ ἐν ἐλάττονι. πάχος μὲν οὖν
τῆς ῥίζης ἡλίκον καρπὸς χειρὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐρώστου, μῆκος δὲ ὑπὲρ δέκα
πήχεις. φύεται δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς πλαγίας ῥίζας εἰς τὸν πηλὸν καθιεὶς
λεπτὰς καὶ πυκνὰς, ἄνω δὲ τοὺς παπύρους καλουμένους τριγώνους μέγεθος
ὡς τετραπήχεις. This account is embodied in the description given
by Pliny, WV. H. xiii. 11. 21, where full details are given of the
| process of manufacture of Charta. The triangular stem was
| sliced lengthwise into thin ribbon-like strips (philyrae, scissurae).

1 Plin. H. N. xiii. τα. 21 ‘Hance (chartam) Alexandri Magni uictoria repertam
} auctor est M. Varro, condita in Aegypto Alexandria. Antea non fuisse char-
᾿ς tarum usum.’

6 THE ANCIENT BOOK

As the stem, when the outer envelope was removed, consisted of
a homogeneous pith,’ all the strips taken from any one plant
were of equal quality and differed only in size, those taken from
the centre of the stem being the widest. The finest charta was
made from the widest strips. Every sheet (κόλλημα, pagina,
scida) consisted of two layers of these strips, so arranged that
when the completed sheet lay before the writer, the strips which
formed the under layer or verso were perpendicular, while those
strips which formed the writing surface or recto were horizontal,
and so offered the least possible resistance to the reed pen with
which he wrote.2. The sheet accordingly resembled a piece of
closed network, whence the name δίκτυον or plagula which was
frequently applied to it in ancient times. This structure of the
sheet can be seen clearly in plate II. The two layers were
moistened with Nile water mixed with a little glue; they were
then pressed together, dried in the sun, and rubbed smooth with
ivory or a shell and hammered to expel any moisture left between
the layers. The sheet was always greater in height than in
breadth, since the vertical strips were generally made longer than
the horizontal. The maximum height of the sheet is about 153
inches, the breadth 93. But within these limits there are endless
variations, and it by no means follows that the tallest sheets are
also the widest.

As regards the size of the roll used for literary works there is
no evidence for the hard and fast rules which have been framed
by some modern authorities (e. g. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen,
1882). Pliny states that charta was sold in lengths of 20 sheets
(τόμοι χάρτου, scapi), and the number of 20 can still be seen marked
at intervals on Egyptian rolls. But such a length was only
a device of the χαρτοπώλης to meet the average demand, and did
not imply any restriction on the author, who was free to issue
his work in any size that suited his convenience. The shape
and arrangement of the roll, however, suggested a mean size of

1 It did not consist of concentric layers as is sometimes stated.
2 According to Ibscher (Archiv f. Pap.-forsch. v. 191) the horizontal fibres
would be strained if rolled outwards.

(‘av ‘yu99 puz ‘snaXded uvraypog)

60L £69 11 poyy ‘MaWoY

THE ANCIENT BOOK 7

20 to 30 feet, the higher limit according to Kenyon being rarely if
ever exceeded. The largest papyrus of Hyperides in the British
Museum (eviii, cxv) is about 28 feet in length, that of Herodas
was originally about 25 feet long, while the roll containing
Hyperides 7x Athenogenem cannot have exceeded 7 feet. The
Herculaneum rolls all vary in length, and to judge from the sum
total of columns which is in many instances indicated, they must
often have exceeded 20 sheetsin length. There are, for instance,
147 columns in Philodemus, περὶ ῥητορικῆς δ΄ τὸ πρότερον.

The statements in the classical writers themselves imply that
the size of the roll could be adjusted to its contents, e.g. Cic. ad
Att. xvi. 6 ‘Tu illud desecabis, hoc adglutinabis’; Hor. Serm. i.
ΤΟ. 92 ‘I puer atque meo citus haec subscribe libello’. A roll pre-
served at Vienna (pap. Zois ii) has been lengthened in this way.
It is also clear that Monobibla, or works published separately in
a single roll, could vary considerably in size. Thus the Carmen
saeculare contains only 76 lines, Martial’s Xenia 266, Vergil’s
Bucolics 829, while Horace Epp. i contains 1,006. But, though
an author might issue a single book in a roll of any size that was
not too awkward to handle, it would have obviously been incon-
venient to have a long work, whether a poem or a history, written
in sections of unequal length. In the pre-Alexandrine period
an author seems to have arranged a long work without any
regard to the size of the roll. Thucydides evidently composed
his work as a continuous whole without trying to adjust the
pauses in his narrative so that they might coincide with the end
of the rolls in which it was published. This is the system
referred to by the anonymous author of the Lexicon Vindobonense,
Ρ. 273 (Nauck) ai μέντοι ῥαψῳδίαι κατὰ συνάφειαν ἥδοντο, κορωνίδι μόνῃ
διαστελλόμεναι, ἄλλῳ δ᾽ οὐδενί, i.e. the writing was continuous and
the break in the narrative was not calculated so as to come at
the end of the roll, but might occur anywhere, and was signified
by the coronis (v. p. 13) wherever necessary. It is also the
system which Livius Andronicus found in use when he translated
the Odyssey into Latin, since it is known that his version took
no account of the later division into twenty-four books.

8 THE ANCIENT BOOK

This system must have made it extremely difficult to find
a passage in a long work without considerable trouble. It was
accordingly superseded, soon after the foundation of Alexandria,
by a new system which was more suited to the needs of the great
libraries and to the highly developed trade in books which the
great libraries fostered. The principle of the Alexandrines is that
the author when composing his work must not forget the size of
the rolls which it would require, but endeavour to make his main
divisions coincide with the end of each roll. The principle was
applied to the older literature, e.g. Herodotus and Thucydides
were arranged in nine and eight books respectively. Thus the
‘books’ into which the older works are divided are to be regarded
as purely arbitrary divisions invented by the Alexandrines for
their own convenience and not as part of the author’s original plan.

The introduction of a roll of standard size led to the arrange-
ment of large works in groups of rolls. Without some such
arrangement a long work would have presented an intolerable
chaos to the ordinary reader.

An obvious scheme of division for long works was found in the
twenty-four letters of the alphabet (e. g. in Homer, Theophrastus,
Aristotle). Where this scheme was not convenient the decimal
numeration (with ¢=6, .= το, k= 20) was adopted. The
various groups in which the longest works were arranged are
based upon one or other of these systems. The works of Varro
were arranged in groups of three or six rolls (¢ads or hexads) :
those of Plotinus in groups of nine (exneads). The most usual
arrangement was in groups of five (pentads, e. g. Diodorus) or ten
(decads, e.g. Plato, Republic, Cassius Dio, Livy). If kept in an
armarium or press with shelves, the rolls were often arranged
in a pyramid, and for this purpose decads were especially con-
venient, since they could be arranged with a base of four rolls
on which were placed layers of three, two, and one successively.
An illustration of this (though from a late monument) is repro-
duced here (plate 111) from Clark’s Care of Books (p. 38, Fig. 13).
For transport a capsa or box was used. If the capsa was square
in shape the rolls were tied together in a bundle and laid flat

(τὰ ‘ou ‘vIavID YIVULLUVDASIP] SJaqtey Ul UdATS
SI uondiiosur sayy, “puey sty ur YUU 9111 SurIpjoy st oy pue ‘umieUTy 911 UT
prueskd v ul pasuviie 9.18 1910} *S|[O1 QUTU UT SI ΘΊΠΡΌΘΑ 51 91] 181} YOM oy TZ)

OSNIGVAA NVIOISAHG WaAAA) V

᾿ Στ ᾿- ΝΎ
hemes Ss i
ase tame i .
." |
:
%
iF. |
* «©

THE ANCIENT BOOK 9

inside it ; if, as was more usual, it was round, they were placed
in it upright so as to stand on their ends. This system of
grouping rolls together will explain why whole decads of Livy
have perished. Any injury that befell the box might easily affect
all the ten rolls which it contained.

This new principle of standard sizes for the roll—though, as
will be seen, the standard was not absolutely rigid—affects all
literature from the time of Alexander till the third century a. Ὁ.»
when the vellum codex began to take the place of the papyrus roll.
As an indication of the manner in which it was put in practice,
the statement of Isidore, Bishop of Seville (4. A. D. 636), may be
accepted: ‘Quaedam nomina librorum certis modulis conficie-
bantur, breuiori forma carmina atque epistolae, at uero historiae
maiori modulo scribebantur ’ (E¢ymologiae, vi. 12).

Poetry was read for pleasure, and the reader would frequently
wish to carry the book about with him. Hence the roll was
made of moderate size. The average length was from 700 to I,100
lines, and the longer books found in the poems of Apollonius
Rhodius (1,285-1,781 lines) and Lucretius (1,094-1,457) are to be
regarded as survivals from the pre-Alexandrine period. Vergil
in the Aeneid ranges from 705 to 952: Ovid in the Metamorphoses
from 623 to 968. The collections of Letters that were written for
publication, and hence are properly to be regarded as belonging
to polite literature, fall into similar divisions. The unit of
measurement for Prose is the στίχος or line of maximum size
which was taken to be the average length of a hexameter verse,
i.e. 16 syllables or 34-8 letters... The Letters of the younger
Pliny were published in nine books, each of which contains from
1,062 to 1,232 στίχοι. They vary accordingly within the exceed-
ingly narrow limit of 170 lines.

The roll used for prose works was generally intended for
reference and appealed to a narrower circle of readers. It

1 In practice (as will be seen below, p. 12) the written line was often shorter.
But for the purposes of the trade, in order e. g. to fix the price of the book and
the payment due to the scribe, it was found convenient to have a standard
‘line’, just as the modern copyist finds it convenient to have a standard ‘ folio’
as a unit of measurement,

10 THE ANCIENT BOOK

was often four or five times as large as the average roll of
poetry. The books of Livy vary in length from 1,905 to 3,365
lines. Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Ammianus rarely exceed
two thousand. Ata rough estimate the length of the books of
a carefully planned prose work may be taken as two to three
thousand lines. But, as in Poetry, there was no constraint upon
the author who did not choose to consult the convenience of his
readers. Polybius and Diodorus are old-fashioned and occasion-
ally extend the roll to five thousand. Pausanias, Strabo, and
Dioscorides are writers of scientific treatises and allow their
material to govern the size of their rolls, which range from two
to four thousand lines.

It is evident, therefore, that the size of the roll ultimately
controlled the arrangement of its contents, though the margin
of variation was wide enough not to impose any burdensome
restriction upon an author.

The conditions under which the earlier literature was produced
before the organization of the book-trade in Greece will be con-
sidered in the next chapter. It is known that a commerce in
books had developed in Athens towards the close of the fifth
century. Xenophon (Aznab. vii. 5. 14) states that part of the
cargo of a ship wrecked at Salmydessos in Thrace consisted of
βίβλοι γεγραμμέναι. It is clear therefore that an export trade had
already begun. The evidence as to the methods employed by
ancient booksellers in producing editions of literary works is
exceedingly scanty until the time of Cicero. There is, however,
no reason for supposing that the methods of the trade had
changed in their main outlines between the fifth century and the
first.

In the first century B. c. an author was not paid for his work
by the bookseller. Cicero could hardly have cancelled the intro-
duction to the Academica without paying some compensation to
Atticus, if Atticus had paid him a royalty. There was no law of
literary copyright either in Greece or Rome, and the first issue _
of a book was the only edition that could be controlled by the
author or the bookseller whom he employed. Hence it was to

THE ANCIENT BOOK ΤῊ

the interest of an author that the first edition of his book should
be published in as accurate a form as possible. Often he revised
the early copies himself (cf. Mart. vii. 17. 7 ‘libellos auctoris
calamo sui notatos’). In any case a copy, if properly made,
was not issued until it had been revised by the διορθωτής or
corrector, who compared it with the original, or if it were a copy
of a work already published, with some standard text. (Cf.
Strabo xiii. 1. 54, p. 609 καὶ βιβλιοπῶλαί τινες γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώ-
μενοι Kat οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων συμβαίνει τῶν εἰς
πρᾶσιν γραφομένων βιβλίων καὶ ἐνθάδε καὶ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ.)

When a work was likely to be in demand, a large number of
slaves must have been employed simultaneously in producing
copies of the author’s manuscript. It is often asserted that the
text was dictated in order to secure speed in production. But
while it is impossible to deny that this method may have been
employed, it is difficult to see what advantage it would bring.
Whatever time might be saved in making the copy would be
lost in the subsequent labour of correcting the numerous errors
that could hardly fail to arise in copies taken down from
dictation by a large number of scribes, many or most of whom
would be foreigners. It is significant that Greek and Roman
art preserves no representation of scribes copying from dictation
in the manner portrayed in Egyptian reliefs. While there is
no evidence of the methods of copying that were actually in
use, it is not difficult to imagine one more feasible than dictation.
The author’s copy might be divided into sections, and each
section passed to a number of scribes to be copied by them in
succession: or, if speed were essential, each scribe might copy
a single section many times over, the different sections being
subsequently joined together so as to form complete rolls. It
would not have been difficult to ensure such uniformity of
handwriting as would make the difference between the sections
hardly noticeable.

In the earliest period the lines of the columns of prose
writing in the roll seem to have been of unequal length. At
a later date it becomes the practice, introduced perhaps by the

12 THE ANCIENT BOOK

Alexandrines, to make the lines almost uniform in any single
roll, if allowance is made for the slight inequalities entailed
by the strict rules for the division of syllables which were
observed in Greek. The length of the line was not always
the same. The old view that the Alexandrines deliberately
chose the hexameter line as the standard of length to be
always observed by the scribe is now abandoned. The truth
appears to be that the hexameter, which contains on an average
from 34 to 38 letters, was a convenient measure of maximum
length. But the line in common use in the papyri is often
much shorter and consists sometimes of not more than ro to 15
letters. The average length is from 20 to 25.

In verse texts the stichic or uniform metres (e.g. iambic
senarii and the dactylic hexameter) are written line by line.
Where, however, the passage is composed of mixed metres,
e.g. in lyric poetry and in dramatic choruses, the practice varies.
In the Timotheos fragment, contemporary with Alexander the
Great, the whole is written as prose: in the Bacchylides
papyrus (circ. 50 B.c.) the metres are written in separate lines.
In the Berlin Fragments of Corinna (No. 284, second century
A.D.) both methods appear. In the Berlin fragment of the
Phaethon (P. 9771, which is said to belong to the first century
B.C.) the choruses are written in prose, the metres being in-
dicated by a horizontal stroke of the pen. This neglect of the
proper metrical divisions in the early copies lies at the bottom
of much textual corruption in poetry.

A further source of error was the practice, almost universal
in ancient times, of writing each line of the text in a con-
tinuous δουρί. This led to confusions in writing, and the
hand of the ‘corrector’ who has endeavoured to remove them
can still be seen in the papyri that survive. It led also to
confusions on the part of the reader, though some attempt is
often made to assist the reader by signs. Among such signs
are: (1) The ordinary accents placed over difficult words and

1 Instances are found in Latin where the words are divided by points, e. g. the
Carmen Actiacum from Herculaneum (Scott, /ragmenta Herculanensia, Appendix).

THE ANCIENT BOOK 13

proper names. Often the unaccented syllables only are marked
with barytone accents. A diaeresis distinguishes the vowels
i and τς (2) The sign _— under the line is used (as in the
later codices) to indicate compound words. A diastole or
mark like a comma is used as a sign that words are to be
separated. (3) Punctuation. The dot above the line indicates
the minor pauses. Dots in the middle and low position are also
used for punctuation. A colon or double point is used to mark
the division between the sentences and a change of speaker.
The paragraphos, or lateral stroke (__) drawn under the line to
which it refers, signifies a break in the sense, such as is
occasioned by a change of speaker in a dialogue or play,’ and
is also used to denote a pause of any kind. In choruses this
stroke is used to distinguish strophe and antistrophos. The
end of a book or of some large division is marked by the
coronis Z, which is merely an elaboration of the paragraphos.
Occasionally it is used like the paragraphos to distinguish
strophes in poetry.

If notes are inserted in the roll they are ordinarily written
in the space to the right of the column to which they refer. If
the scribe contemplated writing notes of any length he left wide
spaces between the columns as in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of
the Paeans of Pindar (No. 841). But it was not the custom to
surround the text with the elaborate commentaries that are
sometimes found in the later vellum codices. Such commen-
taries, e.g. the Berlin Didymus on Demosthenes, were published
as separate works.

There is no reason to believe that the lines or columns of a
roll were ever numbered so as to facilitate reference. The
meaning of the stichometrical numbers has been explained
above, p. 9, note 1 (cf. also Schubart, Das Buch, p. 67 sqq.).

Papyrus was by no means a durable material except in dry
climates. When new it was exceedingly tough, but its strength
diminished with age and use. It was quickly spoilt, if not
destroyed, by damp and was soon attacked by insects unless

1 The insertion of the dramatis personae dates from the Empire.

14 THE ANCIENT BOOK

treated with cedar oil. The first sheet (πρωτόκολλον) and the
last (ἐσχατοκόλλιον, Martial, ii. 6. 3) were peculiarly liable to
damage. To enable the first sheet to withstand the strain of
constant handling it was sometimes stiffened by a strip about
an inch wide pasted on the back. The last sheet was similarly
protected. The papyri which have hitherto been found do
not show any traces of the rollers (ὀμφαλός, umbilicus) of wood
or ivory which the Roman authors constantly mention as at-
tached to the beginning and end of the το]. There is, however,
no reason to doubt that they were in use, though they were
probably confined to the more expensive rolls. It is obvious
that the first or last sheet might easily be torn from such a
roller if the reader was not careful in unrolling his book or in
rolling it up again. The effect of mutilations at the beginning
and end of the roll upon the texts of classical writers will be
considered later.

A slip of vellum, leather, or papyrus (σίττυβος, lorum, index,
titulus) of oblong shape was attached either to the roll itself
or to the umbilicus so as to enable the title to be read without
opening the roll or even removing it from its receptacle. One
has been found still in position attached to a papyrus of
Bacchylides (P. Oxyrh. togt). In the elaborate copies made for
libraries or for the best class of purchasers the title of the work
was given inside the book as well, either at the beginning or at
the end. Copies made privately, according to Galen, sometimes
had no title: Φίλοις yap ἢ μαθηταῖς ἐδίδοτο χωρὶς ἐπιγραφῆς ὡς ἂν
οὐδὲ πρὸς ἔκδοσιν (Galen, Kiihn, xix. 9). Doubtless many of the
instances of anonymous literature, e. g. the Ad Herennium and
the Tyeatise on the Sublime, are due to descent from some
privately written copy of the original.

The shape of the roll also gave rise to the practice of quoting
from memory, which is common to all ancient writers. The
roll would not lie conveniently on the desk, and hence an author
could easily be tempted to avoid the trouble of verifying a
quotation. The change from roll to codex is reflected in the -

1 Cf. Stat. Sil. iv. 9. 8 *binis decoratus umbilicis’.

THE ANCIENT BOOK 15

methods of writers, such as Orosius (c. A.D. 417), who do not
assimilate their authorities but transcribe them.

The Codex or folded book plays no great part in the transmis-
sion of literary works until the fourth century ἃ. Ὁ. There is no
evidence to show that it was ever in common use in Greece or
in Greek lands before the Christian era. The early references
which seem to imply the existence of some sort of folded book
before this date are all inconclusive, e.g. Aesch. Suppl. 947 οὐδ᾽
ἐν πτυχαῖς βίβλων κατεσφραγισμένα, a passage which has been
needlessly suspected. This, however, may mean no more than
a folded sheet. Galen alludes to editions of Hippocrates
written on ydpra three hundred years before his time (Kthn,
xviii. 2). These may not be books, but only copies of the
smaller treatises made upon loose sheets for the convenience of
the student. For a time it was thought that evidence for the
use of the codex in Asia Minor as early as the first century B.c.
could be obtained from an inscription discovered at Priene.
Early in that century the citizens of Priene decreed certain
honours to one of their officials named Aulus Aemilius Zosimus,
who, among the many services which he had rendered to his
native town, had made a collection of the local decrees and had
presented the town with two copies, one on papyrus and the
other, it has been supposed, on vellum and in the form of
a codex: διπλῆν τὴν ἀναγραφὴν αὐτῶν zrapadovs ἐν δερματίνοις καὶ βυβ-
λίνοις τεύχεσιν (Von Gartringen, Juschr. von Priene, No. 114).
But it is more than doubtful whether τεῦχος can be taken to
mean codex at so early a date. More probably it means a roll
(cf. Birt, Die Buchrolle, p. 21, note 2) made of the ordinary
διφθέραι or leathern skins that were common throughout the East
from the earliest times. The folded book was doubtless known
in early times in Greece. The pattern was already to hand in
the folded tablet of wood. But it is clear that it was not in
common use till it was adopted by the Romans, or the references
to it would be more explicit.

At Rome it was many centuries before the vellum codex came

16 THE ANCIENT BOOK

into use for works of literature, and the history of its develop-
ment is uncertain. Towards the end of the Republic vellum
was used by authors for their rough drafts and vellum codices
were used by merchants for their account books. Its durability,
and the comparative ease with which it could be cleaned and
used again, recommended it for both these purposes. Not till
the first century a.p. do we begin to find it used for permanent
copies of literary works. Martial, in the fourteenth book of his
epigrams entitled the Apophoreta, the date of which is placed
circa A.D. 85, describes a number of gifts suitable for presen-
tation by rich and poor to their friends at the Saturnalia. The
gifts are arranged in pairs, and in the original arrangement
(which has been disturbed in several places) the expensive gift
is described first. Among these gifts are rolls and codices: and
it is not easy to infer from the collection as it stands whether
the rolls or the codices are regarded as the more costly present.
Among the pairs given are:

184. Homerus in pugillaribus 183. Homeri Batrachomachia.

membraneis.
186. Vergilius in membranis. 185. Vergili Culex.
188. Cicero in membraneis. 189. Monobyblos Properti.

1g0. Titus Liuiusinmembranis. 191. Sallustius.
192. Ouidi Metamorphosis in 193. Tibullus.

membranis.
194. Lucanus. 195. Catullus.
It has been argued with great persistence by Birt that the
rolls which are here given in the second column are the more
expensive gifts.

He is led to this view in order to obtain support for his theory
that papyrus was always more expensive than vellum, and in
order to maintain it he has to assume that the works contained
in the rolls were valuable from their rarity as well as written on
the more costly material. Otherwise it would be impossible to
argue that works of such small compass as the Cw/ex, Sallust,
Catullus, and Propertius could be reckoned as more valuable .
presents than the whole of Vergil and of Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

GHEE TANCIENT BOOK 17

But there is no evidence that the small works in question had
become rare so early as the age of Martial, and the natural
view is to regard them (with Friedlander) as the cheap presents.
The vellum codices here mentioned will then be an expensive
form of book, pocket editions used by the rich when on their
travels’: e.g. the edition of Cicero on vellum in Martial
xiv. 188 ‘Si comes ista tibi fuerit membrana, putato Carpere
te longas cum Cicerone uias’. It is not necessary to suppose
that such editions contained the complete works of the longer
authors such as Cicero or Livy. Doubtless they consisted of
excerpts. This seems implied in the description of the codex of
Livy in xiv. 190 ‘ Pellibus exiguis artatur Liuius ingens ’.

The vellum codex therefore as a medium for the preservation
of literature was slowly winning its way to recognition in the
time of Martial. A small indication of the position which it
held by the side of the papyrus roll is afforded by the language
of the jurists during the first three centuries of the Empire.
Though they had long used the codex themselves they are never
quite certain whether it can be included under the legal meaning
of the term ‘/brz’. In the first century Cassius Longinus
ventures on the opinion that membranae are books, and that if
a testator left his ‘books’ to his heir membranae would be
included among them. But Ulpian in the third century doubts
the soundness of this opinion, and holds that on a strict inter-
pretation only rolls are denoted by the term (Dig. xxxiii. 52),
though it is immaterial whether rolls are made of papyrus or
vellum.

The convenience of the codex recommended it to the use of
the Church. The Gospels were undoubtedly transmitted in the
form of rolls during the first two centuries. But the roll was
neither compact nor durable. A single codex, however, could

1 It is only by assuming that vellum was more expensive than papyrus that
we can explain the alarm felt in the reign of Tiberius when the supply of
papyrus seemed likely to fail. ‘Factumque iam Tiberio principe inopia chartae
ut e senatu darentur arbitri dispensandis: alias in tumultu uita erat’ (Plin. H. Ν.

Kili. 13. 89). Civilized life could hardly have been threatened by such a failure
f there had really been cheap vellum ready to take the place of papyrus.

413 ς

18 THE ANCIENT BOOK

contain all that was essential to the Faith: it could withstand
constant use and could be produced cheaply enough to satisfy
the demand of the poorer classes who were the earliest converts
to Christianity.

By the fourth century the codex had become a serious rival to
the roll. Basil and Jerome use both forms of book, but Jerome
himself in his letter to Marcella offers a typical instance of the
change that was everywhere taking place. He there describes
the condition of the library of Pamphilus of Caesarea. The
rolls in it were found to be in a state of decay towards the end
of the fourth century and two priests, Euzoius and Acacius,
undertook to transcribe their contents upon codices. In profane
literature the growing popularity of the codex is attested by
specimens belonging to the fourth century which still survive
in a fragmentary condition (e.g. Vatican Vergil 3225, usually
quoted as F): and with this century begins the gradual trans-
ference of the ancient literature from roll to codex, though
the use of the roll certainly survived among the cultivated
pagan remnant in the West till the fifth century.

The influence which this ‘ codification’ of ancient writers may
have had upon the texts of their works is a factor which must
enter into any critical estimate. Such a transference is like the
change in the gauge of a railway which is bound to affect the
rolling stock. One result, which was not long delayed, was
a shrinkage in the bulk of the older literature. The vellum
codex was costly, though cheaper for a long work than a large
number of rolls. Authors survived or perished according to the
value set upon them during this period. Many works of the
highest value were allowed to decay in the roll form and passed
out of existence, e.g. the historian Theopompus. It is to this
period rather than to the Byzantine age that the main losses in
Greek literature must be ascribed. In nearly every case the
effect of the change was to leave the longer works incomplete.
ither the collection of rolls which served as the archetype of our
vellum manuscripts was defective, or excerpts were intentionally
substituted for the complete text. As early as the last century

THE ANCIENT BOOK 19

before Christ, Diodorus (xvi. 3. 8) complains of the loss of several
rolls belonging to the History of Theopompus. The works of
Livy, which were complete in the time of Symmachus (350-420),
must have become mutilated soon after: and the same fate
overtook the writings of Tacitus, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus,
and Varro.

Another effect was the confusion and sometimes the total
obliteration of the old arrangement by books. This arrange-
ment, which, as has been seen, was the corollary of the roll
system, was no longer essential when the text was transferred
to the codex. A long section would no longer entail a long and
cumbersome roll and the author could now choose sections of
any length that seemed best to him. Little harm, however, has
been done where the disappearance of the old divisions has not
dislocated the text, e.g. in Demosthenes’ λόγοι παραγραφικοί,
which were arranged in τόμοι of six orations apiece, as can be
seen from the traces that still survive in the Paris codex 3. So
too in Juvenal the old division into books would be lost but for
the evidence of the Pithoeanus. Here again the text has not
suffered. Often, however, the rolls were copied in the wrong
order. Jerome utters a warning against this danger in the
Preface to Ezechiel: ‘Ne librorum numerus confundatur et per
longa temporum spatia diuisorum inter se uoluminum ordo
uitietur praefatiunculas singulis libris praeposui.’ As an instance
of what has happened to several writers we may take Cicero’s
Epistulae ad Famulares. Here a difficulty has always been felt
in the traditional order, according to which the official letters, Ad
Senatum et ceteros, are inserted between Book XIV (addressed
to his wife Terentia) and Book XVI (addressed to his freedman
Tiro). The letters to Tiro are certainly in place at the end of
the collection and their order is attested by the subscriptio Eco
TIRO EDIDI ET VT POTVI EMENDAVI. The grammarian Nonius
(or the authorities whom he follows) cites a passage from what
is now Book XV as being part of 27. Tulhus ad Cassium lib. I,
thus implying that Book XV came first in his copy of the
Ad Famuliares. This is the natural position for the official

Ε 2

20 THE ANCIENT BOOK

letters, which ought to precede the letters to private friends.
In support of this view it has been observed by F. Marx
(Festschrift fiir O. Benndorf, 1898, p. 46) that Nonius cites as
much from Book XV as from all the other books in the collec-
tion. This is in keeping with the general practice of the ancient
grammarians, who make far more liberal excerpts from the
earlier books of a work than from the later. The inference to
be drawn is that the present numeration of the books of the
Ad Famitiares is not very ancient. In the time of Hadrian the
collection began with Book XV and ended with Book XVI.
The old order was disturbed when the text was transferred
from rolls to codices about A.D, 350 and cannot now be recovered
in its entirety.

An error of the like origin is seen in the Naturales OQuaestiones
of Seneca and in the Comedies of Plautus. In the Ambrosianus
of Plautus the alphabetical order is disturbed, since the 77:
nummus, Truculentus, and Vidularia are wrongly inserted
between the Menaechwu and the Poenulus. Terence’s plays
were arranged in chronological order. This order is preserved
in the Bembinus except that the second and third plays (the
Heauton and the Eunuchus) have been interchanged.

It might easily happen that the roll from which the codex was
copied was mutilated at the beginning or end.*. Hence the title
of a work together with the name of its author might easily be
lost, and as rolls on the same subject were frequently kept in the
same capsa we have here one explanation of the false ascription
of works to well-known writers. A probable instance of mutila-
tion at the end of a roll is to be seen in Propertius, Book I.
The poem beginning with ‘Qualis et unde genus’, follows the
regular type of literary Bios introduced by the Alexandrines to
precede or conclude a work. But it is obviously incomplete.
The loss, however, cannot be ascribed to the middle age or to
the eighth-century archetype which some assume for the existing
manuscripts. From its position at the end of the first book it

1 Cf. the loss of the end of the Gospel of St. Mark.

THE ANCIENT BOOK 21

must date from a time when the book had a separate existence
in a single roll.

{The main authorities are:

Birt, T. Das antike Buchwesen. Berlin, 1882.

Die Buchrolle in der Kunst. Leipzig, 1907.

—— Zur Geschichte des antiken Buchwesens. Centralblatt fiir Bibhiothekswesen,
1900, pp. 545-65.

Crark, J. W. The Care of Books. Cambridge, rgot.

DztatzKo, K. Untersuchungen tiber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens,
Leipzig, 1900.

-— Articles on ‘Buch’ and ‘ Buchhandel’ in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclo-
padie, 1897.

GARDTHAUSEN, V. Griechische Palacographie, vol.i. Das Buchwesen im Altertuin
und im Byzantintschen Mittelalter, 2nd ed., 1911.

GerckeE, A. ‘Das antike Buch’ in Gercke-Norden, Einleitung in die Alterthums-
wissenschaft. τοτο.

HAEBERLIN, C. Grechische Papyrt. Leipzig, 1897. An off-print from Cen-
tralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen, giving an account of the literary papyri
discovered up to 1897.

Hontwein, N. La Papyrologie grecque. Louvain, 1905. A_ bibhiographie
raisonnée,

Karapacek, J. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, Fiihrer durch die Ausstellung.
Wien, 1894.

Kenyon, F.G. Palacography of Greek Papyri. Oxford, 1899.

Mapa, F. Books in Manuscript. London, 1893.

MaunpvE THompson, E. Introduction to Gk. and Lat. Palaeography. Oxford,
1912.

Scuupart, W. Das Buch bei den Griechen und Rémern. Berlin, 1907.

TrauseE, L. Vorlesungen i-ii. Munich, 1909-10. |

CHAP LER ΤΙ

THE TEXT OF GREEK AUTHORS IN
ANCIENT TIMES

In the preceding chapter it has been shown that the form of the
ancient book and the materials of which it was composed imply
certain dangers to the text which it contains. More serious
dangers arise from other conditions under which the text is
transmitted. If no control is exercised over the copyist the
integrity of the text is certain to be impaired even during the
lifetime of the author. The chances of corruption are infi-
nitely greater when the author is dead, the purpose of his
work perhaps forgotten and the very meaning of words that
were clear to his contemporaries blurred or misunderstood
through changes in habits of thought or through the natural
development of the language in which he wrote. The text must
be protected if it is to survive without loss and such protection
can only be given by scholarship—the one safeguard against
inevitable corruption in the ages before the invention of printing.
But scholarship is not coeval with literature in Greece, and
even at Rome some authors, such as Plautus, long remained
outside its range. It is necessary, therefore, at the outset to draw
distinctions between the various classes of texts. Some, such
as Vergil and the greater Latin poets, have been protected from
the first by skilled grammarians and have consequently suffered
little harm in transmission. Others, such as Pindar and to some
extent the Greek Tragedians, were only protected after a long
period of unlicensed transmission and have suffered considerable
harm, though the damage can often be estimated and sometimes
repaired. Others again, though happily few in number, such as
the poems of Manilius, and occasional works such as the letters
of Demosthenes, the Batrachomyomachia, and some of the

Sree HEXTS IN ANCIENT TIMES 23

Homeric Hymns, seem never to have been protected at all, and
survive in a state of grave corruption.

It is clear, therefore, that before the textual critic approaches
the work of Recension (i.e. the critical examination of all the
documents in which a text is preserved) and Emendation (i.e.
the attempt to restore the corrupt passages which remain in a text
after the work of recension is complete) he is bound to consider
the history of the text upon which he is working. He must
diagnose the disease, or else he may be attempting to correct
errors which are of such ancient standing as to be incurable by
modern methods, or he may be questioning a text which can be
traced back to the original author.

Almost every Greek author before the Alexandrine period, and
certainly each separate department of literature, presents a
different problem and the soiution of the problem must begin
with an exhaustive inquiry into the history of the text, so far as
the history is ascertainable. It is only within the last quarter of
a century that such inquiries have been conducted with any
measure of success! upon lines best seen in the work of such
men as Wilamowitz-Méllendorff*? on the Tragedians and Lyric
and Bucolic poets, Usener on Plato, Diels on Aristotle and
Demosthenes, and Leo and Lindsay on Plautus.

That questions so vital have remained unanswered for so long
is due to two causes. In the first place, the materials for forming
a judgement upon Alexandrine scholarship were scattered or
did not exist. An advance was rendered possible by the work
of scholars such as Lehrs and Ludwich—who have determined
accurately the methods employed by Aristarchus by their critical

1 That the method was no new discovery can be seen from a rough draft of
Ritschl’s lectures given in Ribbeck’s Life of Ritschl, i. 334: ‘Die Kritik ist Jahrhun-
derte lang subjectiv geiibt worden: glainzend Bentley. FEinseitigkeit und
Principlosigkeit, die zu jeder Willkir fiihrt, weil kein Anhalt. Historisch ist 2u
verfahren, nach den Quellen zu fragen, nach den objectiven Grundlagen . . . die
Geschichte des Textes 2u erforschen.’

2 Especially in his Euripides, Herakles (1899), and his Die Texigeschichte der
griechischen Lyriker (Berlin, 1900). The present chapter is founded largely on
the theory of development which he has maintained in these works.

24 GREEK TEXTS

examination of the Venetian Scholia to Homer—and by such
pioneer editions as Lentz’s collection of the Fragments of
Herodian, the grammarian of the second century a.p.; and, as
has already been seen, progress has of late been quickened by
the rich discoveries of ancient papyri. In the second place, it is
now evident that the accepted methods of textual criticism have
been based too exclusively upon the needs of the Latin classics.
The great Latin authors worked under favourable conditions
which had been secured in Greece only after centuries of
haphazard transmission. They wrote for a public whose demands
were supplied by a highly organized book trade. Hence their
works were copied from the first with professional skill, and
soon published in standard editions which were protected by the
labours of a long line of scholars who had inherited the best
traditions of Alexandria. Plautus, it is true, was left to the
tender mercies of actors for fifty years after his death: but
Plautus is an exceptional instance. The other Roman classics
suffered little till the waves of barbarism swept over the Empire
and texts began to be copied by men who dimly understood, or
were grossly ignorant of the language which they were copying.
The principles of Recension and Emendation have been de-
veloped to deal with this species of corruption, and on the whole
they have dealt so successfully with it that the texts of the great
authors, such as Vergil and Horace, may be taken as trustworthy
representatives of the original autographs.

These methods were transferred to the Greek classics where
the problem is different. At first sight it seems an easier
problem since it is acknowledged on all sides that Greek texts
suffered less than Latin at the hands of copyists. The East was
never completely submerged beneath the waves of barbarism that
overwhelmed the West. Manuscripts were often copied by stupid
and ill-educated men, but never by men who were altogether
ignorant of the meaning of what they wrote, since down to the latest
times in Byzantine history the language spoken was the lineal, if
degenerate, descendant of the language of the great classics. It is”
true that there was an infiltration of base forms and constructions,

IN ANCIENT ‘TIMES 25

but this is an evil that was never deliberately inflicted and
consequently has not penetrated below the surface of the text.
Through the labours of critics such as Cobet it has been removed.
But in detecting the evil such critics were prone to exaggerate
it and conjured up the phantom of a Byzantine schoolmaster or
magistellus (as they term him) who had wilfully transmuted the
gold that he received into his own baser metal. It is now
recognized, however, that with the exception of the philologists
of the time of the Palaeologi (13th-15th centuries), who represent
a Revival of Learning in Greece analogous to the Renaissance
in Italy, and who like the Italian Humanists honestly but
unsuccessfully endeavoured to improve their texts with the
inadequate methods of their time, the Byzantines have handed
down without irretrievable loss the trust that they received
(v. p. 43). But even when all Byzantine accretions are cleared
away the textual critic by no means necessarily finds himself in
touch with a sound tradition which goes back to the original
authors. All such inquiries begin in Byzantium, as Wilamowitz
says, and end in Alexandria. It is, therefore, of the utmost
importance to form an estimate of the work done by the Alex-
andrines, by considering the material with which they had to
deal and the extent to which the results which they obtained
have survived. Such a survey falls into four main periods:

1. The Pre-Alexandrine period.

2. The period of the first Alexandrine scholars and of their
successors, which may be taken to extend from 322 B.c.
to the reign of Hadrian a. "Ὁ. 117.

3. The period from the second century a.p. up to the
beginning of the present manuscript tradition in the ninth
century A.D.

4. The Renaissance under the Palaeologi, a.p. 1261-1453.

I. The Pre-Alexandrine Period.

The literature of early times in Greece was not composed in
order to be read. It was composed for recitation in public or in
private and consisted essentially of the spoken word. Even when

26 GREEK TEXTS

it was not imaginative literature but had a scientific or philo-
sophic purpose, it was written as an aid to memory in verse and
not in prose. Prose writings, however, when they appear
in Ionia, show a like origin and aim, as can be seen from the
terms ἱστορία and λόγος. The historian or philosopher does not
write a book and entrust a well-defined text to the pupil. He
delivers orally the result of his ‘ Research’ or his ‘Argument’,
and the pupil may take it down in writing if he choose. The
author provides the subject-matter, but the ‘book’, so far as it
can be called a book, is written by the pupils. Another early
name for such treatises—izdurvypa, an ‘aid to memory ’—betrays
clearly their origin. It is obvious that literature must have
a very precarious existence under such conditions. The Elegy,
the Song, and the Lampoon pass from mouth to mouth, and
either die or are changed to suit a fresh audience. The more
complex lyric poems of a Pindar or a Bacchylides were sung by
professional choirs in various cities, but they were not read for
pleasure since a large part of the pleasure that they gave came
from the music to which they were set. Even the most popular
of all the forms of literature—the Epic—only survives because
it served to profit the powerful guilds of Rhapsodists. Similarly
the prose ὑπόμνημα, if it is preserved at all, survives in an amor-
phous condition analogous to that of lecture notes passed on
from one generation of pupils to another and plagiarized by all
as they become teachers in their turn. It is to this early period>
that the loss of the works of such writers as Arion, Terpander,
and Lasos must be ascribed—losses which later ages attempted
to repair by forgeries. And here too must be sought an ex-
planation of such a collection of prose treatises as that which
is still extant under the name of the physician Hippocrates
(circ. 430 B.C.).

Up to the end of the sixth century B. c. Greek literature is in
this state of ceaseless flux, and is exposed to all the dangers of
a tradition that is practically oral. And then the change comes
swiftly and suddenly with the birth of a new form of literature,
not local nor occasional nor professional as the older forms had

IN ANCIENT TIMES 27

been, but Pan-Hellenic in its appeal, although it sprang from
a single city-state. This new form was Attic Tragedy, which
never lost the hold which it rapidly obtained over the Greek
race in all quarters of the ancient world. The enthusiasm for
Tragedy created a reading public, since but few Greeks could
hope to see the masterpieces of the great dramatists performed
in Athens. Thus an impulse was given to the production of
books which ends in the growth towards the end of the fifth
century of an organized book trade with its centre in Athens.

The demand for books was not without its influence upon the
older literature, which was still in the state of flux and precarious
transmission that has been described. Here the new enthusiasm
acted like a chemical reagent which precipitates what previously
was held in solution. Much had perished, and was still to
perish, before it could be rescued by the learning of Ionia and
Alexandria, but for a time a halt was called in the progress
towards annihilation or decay, since the educated public became
accustoméd to regard written texts as a permanent source of
pleasure and not merely as an aid to memory.

During the fifth century and even later books were still
regarded as luxuries which could not be procured without some
trouble. It is clear that they were an article of commerce in
the time of Socrates, since he alludes in Plat. Apol. 26 p to
the purchase of some of the works of Anaxagoras.' By degrees
private persons began to collect them, and contemporary re-
ferences are found to libraries belonging to Euripides, Euclides,
and Euthydemus. But such collections must have been small
in extent, to judge by the surprise which Socrates expresses on
hearing that his friend Euthydemus possesses a complete copy
of the works of Homer (Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 10), and must have
consisted largely of privately made copies procured at consider-
able cost. Even the tragedies of Euripides, the most popular of
the dramatists, cannot have been in the hands of large numbers

1 Cf, also Aristoph. Az. 1288 κἄπειτ᾽ ἂν ἅμα κατῆραν és τὰ βιβλία : Eupolis, Fr.
304 (Kock) οὗ τὰ BiBA’ ὥνια : and Xen, Anab., vii. 5. 14, where an export trade
in books is implied.

28 GREEK TEXTS

of the Syracusans, or else the Athenians taken prisoners after
the failure of the Sicilian expedition would not have won the
favour of their captors by their recitations from his works.
Perhaps a glimpse at the methods by which the works of popular
authors were distributed at this period is afforded by the gibe
levelled at Hermodorus, a pupil of Plato, who was taunted with
turning trader and ‘travelling in’ the Master’s Dialogues—
λόγοισιν “Eppddwpos ἐμπορεύεται. It passed into currency as a
proverb, and is explained by the paroemiographer Zenobius, v. 6:
ὁ “Eppddwpos ἀκροατὴς γέγονε τοῦ Πλάτωνος καὶ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ συντεθει-
μένους λογισμοὺς κομίζων εἰς Σικελίαν ἐπώλει. In other words, there
was no organized medium of distribution, but the private traveller
as well as the travelling merchant would take with him a few
copies of a newauthor on the chance that they would interest his
distant friends or customers. If they required further copies
would have to make them for themselves.

There is no doubt that the deep-seated corruptions in the texts
of many of the earlier Greek authors belong to this period of
privately made copies. Some idea of the form of these copies
may be gained from the Berlin 77motheos and the Dublin Antiope
which belong to the fourth and third century respectively.
There is, however, no reason to suppose that the habits of the
ordinary scribe had changed within so short an interval and
they may be taken as evidence of the general features of a book
of the fifth century. They present a text written in broad
columns, in a continuous uncial or rather monumental script
without any divisions to indicate words or metre and without
any system of punctuation to indicate the sense beyond an
occasional paragraph to mark off the larger sections. Such
books correspond very closely in form to the inscriptions of the
time, and the reader in either case was left with only the raw
material or γράμματα which he had to analyse for himself into
words and sentences. It is obvious how such an original might
be perverted in copying, even were the copyist an educated man
such as Cephisophon, the slave of Euripides. The risk of
corruption would be infinitely greater when the copy was made

IN ANCIENT TIMES 29

by an uneducated mechanic who copied letter for letter, like
a lapidary carving an inscription, without troubling to seize the
gist of what he wrote. There is no doubt that by the middle of
the fourth century the texts of many authors had become un-
certain. Bad copies were common, although trustworthy copies
were still to be had. Tragedy suffered from the alterations
made by actors or by the literary adapters employed by theatrical
entrepreneurs. There is direct evidence of this towards the
close of the century. In 330 B.c. the orator Lycurgus carried a
decree to the effect that an official copy of the works of the three
great Tragedians should be preserved in the public archives,
καὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως γραμματέα παραναγιγνώσκειν τοῖς ὑποκρινομένοις
(Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators, p. 841 F)—‘and the town
clerk was ordered to read it over to the actors’ in order that they
might bring their texts into agreement with it. There is no
reason to suppose that the text of this official copy (which after-
wards came into the possession of the Alexandrine Library) was
founded upon a collation of existing manuscripts. It was doubt-
less the best copy that the booksellers of the time could
supply.

It is to this period that the mutilation of such plays as the
Septem of Aeschylus and the Heraclidae of Euripides belongs.
To it also belongs such bad lines as οὐδὲν yap ἐστ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄτης
ἄτερ in Sophocles Antig. 4, τήνδ᾽ ἀλιπαρῆ τρίχα in Soph. δ 451,
and such interpolations as φιλέοντι δὲ Μοῖσαι in Pindar Olymp. ii.
28. The length to which corruption of this kind could go is
best seen in the Petrie papyrus of the Phaedo, which belongs to
the third century. A few instances will serve as illustrations :

68 A. Petrie Papyrus. MS. Tradition.
As 4) , Ν a cA oe! ΄, Ν Ne
ἢ ἀνθρωπίνων μὲν παιδικῶν ἢ ἀνθρωπίνων μὲν παιδικῶν
ἢ γυναικῶν ἢ παίδων ἕνεκα καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ ὑέων
ἀποθανόντων πολλοὶ ἑκόντες ἀποθανόντων πολλοὶ δὴ ἑκόντες
ἠθέλησαν εἰς “Αιδου ἐλθεῖν. ἠθέλησαν εἰς Αἰδου μετελθεῖν.

where ἕνεκα is a mere interpolation to make the construction
easier than the genitive absolute.

30 GREEK TEXTS

68 E.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως αὐτοῖς συμβαίνει ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως αὐτοῖς συμβαίνει
τοῦτο ὅμοιον τὸ πάθος τοι τούτῳ ὅμοιον τὸ πάθος τὸ
ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀνδραποδώδη περὶ ταύτην τὴν εὐήθη
σωφροσύνην. σωφροσύνην.

53 oes
περὶ οὗ ἂμ μάλιστα τοῦτο περὶ ὃ ἂν μάλιστα τοῦτο
πάσχει, μάλιστα δὲ εἶναι πάσχῃ: τοῦτο ἐναργέστατόν
τοῦτο, οὐχ οὕτως ἔχον. τε εἶναι καὶ ἀληθέστατον,

οὐχ οὕτως ἔχον.

It cannot be doubted that many texts were exposed to corrup-
tion of this kind in the fourth century, and that the scholarship
of the time afforded them no protection. Such learning as
existed was the learning of the schoolmaster and the sophist.
The schoolmaster was content to explain the ‘ glosses’ or diffi-
cult words in a text. The explanations were often ridiculous
enough, e.g. τοῖος explained as meaning ‘good’, τόσον as mean-
ing ‘a body’. A collection of similar blunders will be found in
Lehrs’ De Aristarchi studiis Homericis, p.36. Such learning was
not likely to preserve a text. The sophist, on the other hand,
sought for the ethical significance of a passage rather than for
any philological interpretation. ‘The great aim of education’,
says Protagoras in Plato’s dialogue, 339 A, ‘is περὶ ἐπῶν δεινὸν
εἶναι" ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν λεγόμενα οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι συνιέναι ἅ
τε ὀρθῶς πεποίηται καὶ ἃ μή, i.e. to distinguish between good poetry
and bad from the point of view of the moralist.

It is evident, therefore, that the accuracy of texts was seriously
threatened, if the mischief already done were not arrested by
the growth of a school of philology and criticism. But for her
political misfortunes in the fourth century Athens might have
proved as eminent in this as in all other departments of the
intellect. The promise of such a movement can be seen in Aris-
totle’s many-sided activity. He was the first to collect a large
library. But his immediate successors were interested in history
rather than in philology. The impulse towards the scientific study
of literature was not destined to come from Athens. Neither did
it come from Alexandria in the first place, but from Ionia.

DN ee NCIEN TT: TIMES 31

After the death of Alexander the Great there seems to have
been a reaction against the Athenian culture of which he was the
champion. In their dislike of Athens the Ionians revived the
interest in pre-Attic writers such as Pindar and the other Lyric
poets. During the last half of the fourth century this older litera-
ture had gone out of fashion in Athens. The Lyric poets are
not represented in the library described by Alexis in his comedy
the Linos. Neither can they have been much in Aristotle’s
mind when he framed his theory of μίμησις as an explanation of
poetry in general, since it hardly affords a satisfactory explana-
tion of Lyric poetry. They were no longer read, but had passed
away along with the spirit of the heroic age of Marathon and
Salamis to which they belonged. The revival of this older
literature—Epic, Lyric, and Elegiac—gave rise to two movements
which spread beyond the land of their origin and reach their
culminating point in Alexandria. On the one hand, a fresh
impulse is given to a creative literature written in the old
forms and dialects which had been disused for so long. On the
other hand, the science of philology and criticism is brought into
being, since the old literature required to be explained before it
could be fully appreciated. The new science develops upon
Tonian soil into the school of Pergamum,' but reaches a very
different and far higher development in Alexandria, whither it was
transplanted by men such as Zenodotus of Ephesus who, like
many of his successors, was a man of letters as well as a scholar.
It is of the first importance to consider the methods employed by
the Alexandrines and the results to which they led.

' The history of scholarship at Pergamum is involved in obscurity. Much
valuable work appears to have been done on prose authors such as the Attic
Orators, and there is evidence of standard copies of poetic writers such as
Aristophanes which are Pergamene in origin. Vde Venetian scholia on Aves
1508 ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αττιλίοις εὗρον σκιάδειον καὶ ἐν τῷ παλαιῷ τῷ ἐμῷ. But scholarship
was soon subordinated to philosophy and sank into the quicksands of Stoic
speculations. For the influence of the Pergamene School at Rome v. Leo, Plaut.
Forschungen, p. 35 (1912).

32 GREEK TEXTS

Il. The Alexandrine scholars and their immedtate successors.

The Ptolemies had gathered through their agents a hetero-
geneous mass of manuscripts which were preserved in the two
libraries at Alexandria, the Brucheum and the Serapeum. The
early scholars had before them the Herculean labour of reducing
these collections to order. They had first to construct a catalogue.
This was a complicated task since it involved inquiry into the
authenticity of works that were currently attributed to distin-
guished names. The first catalogue to be published was by
Callimachus and bore the title of πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ
\ διαλαμψάντων καὶ dv συνέγραψαν.

These ‘Tables’ are said to have consisted of 120 books, in
which the volumes catalogued were arranged in eight classes:
(x) Drama, (2) Poetry(Epic, Lyric, &c.), (3) Legislation, (4) History,
(6) Oratory, (7) Rhetoric, (8) Miscellaneous. Within these
classes the Alexandrines undoubtedly paid most attention to the
authors whose works they found more or less completely pre-
served. These are the authors whose works they published in
standard editions (ἐκδόσεις), while they wrote separate treatises
or ὑπομνήματα to elucidate difficulties in the text. In all
probability these are the authors arranged by Aristophanes of
Byzantium and Aristarchus in κανόνες, or ‘ Lists’, which are not
to be regarded as arbitrary selections made from a large mass of
authors whose works had survived in their entirety, but simply
as ‘ Lists’ of the authors in each class whose works had survived
in sufficient bulk to enable them to be chosen as typical repre-
sentatives of their class. The Alexandrines, therefore, recognize
five Tragedians, because five and no more survived apart from
isolated plays; nine Lyric poets, because there were only nine
that were still current—éezparrovro, to use the phrase of a later age.
Minor poets, such as Praxilla of Sicyon or Telesilla of Argos,
may have existed in the library, but they were not among the
πραττόμενοι, 1.e. they were not in the hands of readers. It is
important to bear this in mind so as not to do the Alexandrines

IN ANCIENT TIMES ἘΠῚ

the injustice of thinking that they neglected some of their
treasures after they had rescued them from oblivion. It is
obvious on the contrary that they preserved every fragment ! on
which they could lay their hands, though they were wise enough
to apply their energy in quarters where it would produce most
effect. The main interest of these scholars was in poetry. How
far they edited the prose authors is uncertain. The evidence is
incomplete, and how dangerous it is to assert dogmatically that
they neglected them is shown by the recent discovery in Egypt
of a papyrus fragment referring to a previously unknown com-
mentary on Herodotus by Aristarchus (Grenfell and Hunt,
Amherst Pap. ii. 3. 12).

In no single instance has their work survived in its original
form, and it is necessary to argue backwards from the indications
preserved in later writers in order to gain an idea of the methods
which they employed. Apart from scattered notices the best
evidence of their work is found in the Venetian scholia to
Homer, which contain excerpts from four treatises. The sub-
scription in the MS. A (Cod. Venetus, 454 of the tenth century)
is as follows: παράκειται τὰ ᾿Αριστονίκου σημεῖα καὶ τὰ Διδύμου περὶ
τῆς ᾿Αρισταρχείου διορθώσεως, τινὰ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ιλιακῆς προσῳδίας
Ηρωδιανοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Νικάνορος περὶ στιγμῆς. Of these Aristonicus
and Didymus (both contemporary with Strabo, 64 B. C.—A. D. 19)
preserved important fragments of the learning of Aristarchus
upon Homer, together with references to the work of his pre-
decessors, Zenodotus and Aristophanes. The work of these men
upon Homer may fairly be taken to illustrate the principles upon
which they worked in dealing with other texts.

The early critics in modern times (e. g. Wolf) laid stress on the
defects of these scholars rather than upon their merits. Both
will be apparent from a brief survey of their method.

Their first aim was to clear the text of the interpolations which
lefaced it in many copies. In detecting such interpolations they

1 There is interesting evidence of this in Aristoph. Wubes, 967, where the
choliast in discussing the quotation τηλέπορόν τι βόαμα remarks φασὶ δὲ μὴ
ὑρίσκεσθαι ὅτου ποτέ ἐστιν" ἐν yap ἀποσπάσματι ἐν τῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ εὑρεῖν ᾿Αριστοφάνη.

473 D

34 GREEK TEXTS

relied (1) on the external authority of manuscripts, (2) on the
internal evidence afforded by the text before them or by other
parts of the author’s work.

These internal tests may be roughly classed under four

headings :

(1) Lines which do not suit the immediate context in which
they occur, because they are repetitions of lines which are
found elsewhere, or because they weaken its emphasis or
bring it into conflict with other parts of the poem.

(2) Lines which do not suit the Persons to whom they are
applied.

(3) Lines which do not suit the Antiquities of the poem and
import anachronisms into the Heroic Age.

(4) Lines which do not suit the Language normally employed
by the poet.

The last two are in every way legitimate tests which were em-

ployed with admirable results by Aristophanes and Aristarchus.
They required a greater command of learning than the earlier
critics such as Zenodotus possessed. Of the first two the second
is wholly valueless, but has a historical explanation; while the
first opens the door to much criticism that is based only on
personal opinion or prejudice.

A few concrete instances will best explain the success and the

failure of these canons of criticism.

(1) Zenodotus rejects Π 677 and alters Π 666 to

καὶ τότ᾽ ap ἐξ Ἴδης προσέφη Ζεὺς ὃν φίλον υἱόν

because he can find no indication as to how Apollo reaches Ida
from the plain of Troy.
In A 88, where Athene is referred to:

Πάνδαρον ἀντίθεον διζημένη, εἴ που ἐφεύροι.

εἷρε Λυκάονος υἱὸν ἀμύμονά τε κρατερόν τε---
he wishes to read only
ΠΠάνδαρον ἀντίθεον διζημένη, εὗρε δὲ τόνδε.

a violent and unjustifiable alteration based apparently on his dis-

IN ANCIENT TIMES 39

like to the repetition of the verb εὑρεῖν in two successive lines.
Aristarchus is not free from similar faults. In A 514-15

ἰητρὸς yap ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων

ἰούς T ἐκτάμνειν ἐπί T ἥπια φάρμακα πάσσειν.
he rejects the second line on the ground that μεμείωκε τὴν ἔμφασιν
καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀθετεῖν εἴωθε.

In A 442

ὦ Χρύση, πρό μ᾽ ἔπεμψεν ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν ᾿Αγαμέμνων

παῖδά τε σοὶ ἀγέμεν, Φοίβῳ θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην

ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν, ofp ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα---
he rejects the third line as pleonastic (περισσόν). It can be spared
if dyéuev be taken as the verb common to παῖδα and ἑκατόμβην.

(2) The charge of τὸ ἀπρεπές, or incompatibility with the
character of the person to whom the line applies, leads to extra-
ordinary results.

In I 424 the goddess Aphrodite places a seat for the mortal
Helen to sit upon. Zenodotus rejects the line on the ground of
ἀπρέπεια : ᾿Απρεπὲς yap αὐτῷ ἐφαίνετο τὸ τῇ Ἑλένῃ τὴν ᾿ Αφροδίτην
δίφρον βαστάζειν.

Such caprices of criticism belong only to the infancy of the
study. Aristarchus is obviously uneasy when he rejects a verse
on these grounds; e.g. in ¢ 244 Nausicaa prays

al yap ἐμοὶ τοιόσδε πόσις κεκλημένος εἴη

ἐνθάδε ναιετάων, καί οἱ ἅδοι αὐτόθι μίμνειν.
Aristarchus obelizes them on the ground that δοκοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι
ἀπρεπεῖς παρθένῳ εἶναι καὶ ἀκόλαστοι. But he has doubt as to
whether the first may not be genuine because he found the line
imitated in so early a poet as Aleman who puts the words Ζεῦ
πάτερ εἰ yap ἐμὸς πόσις εἴη into the mouths of a chorus of maidens.
He has no hesitation in rejecting some of Zenodotus’s excisions.
In T 424 mentioned above he at once cuts at the root of the
objection by remarking that Aphrodite has taken upon herself
the semblance of an old woman, and suits her actions to the
character that she is sustaining.

Subjective criticism of this kind was not so unnatural at this

D2

36 GREEK TEXTS

early period. It was partly inherited from the sophistic method of
interpretation which has already been described, and partly arose
from the inability of men who were living the complex life which
the court of the Ptolemies had introduced into Alexandria to
understand the simplicity of Homer. There is no reason to
believe that this vice of method affects their treatment of other
authors.

(3) An excellent instance of the use which Aristarchus makes
of his knowledge of Homeric antiquities is seen in Θ 185.
Hector addresses his horses:

Ξάνθε τε καὶ σὺ Πόδαργε καὶ Αἴθων Λάμπε τε die,

νῦν μοι τὴν κομιδὴν ἀποτίνετον----
The first line is athetized by Aristarchus on the ground that
Homer never mentions a four-horse chariot, and because the
verb in the dual is out of place. Furthermore, the names of the
horses betray the hand of an interpolator who has taken them
from T 400 and Ψ 295.

(4) Of his knowledge of linguistic usage an instance may be

taken from K 408 where there were two readings :

πῶς δ᾽ at τῶν ἄλλων Τρώων φυλακαί and

πῶς δαὶ τῶν ἄλλων Τρώων φυλακαί.
Aristarchus chose the latter out of respect for Homeric usage (τὸ
ἔθιμον τοῦ ποιητοῦ), Which is against the article in this sense, while
it sanctions the use of δαί after an interrogative particle.

Then remains the question how far the Alexandrines intro-
duced their own conjectures in defiance of the manuscript
tradition. Here an increase of caution came with increasing
knowledge. Zenodotus was notoriously rash, e. g. Il 93:

μή τις ἀπ᾿ Οὐλύμποιο θεῶν ἀειγενετάων

ἐμβήῃ" μάλα τούς γε φιλεῖ ἑκάεργος ᾿Απόλλων

ἀλλὰ arly τρωπᾶσθαι, ἐπὴν φάος ἐν νηέσσι

θήῃς, τοὺς δέ τ᾽ ἐᾶν πεδίον κάτα δηριάασθαι.
For these lines, on the ground that they are unsuitable to the
gods, Zenodotus substituted the single line:

μή σ᾽ ἀπογυμνωθέντα λάβῃ κορυθαίολος “Exrwp

IN ANCIENT TIMES 37

upon which Dionysius Thrax remarks that he might as well have
read δάκῃ for λάβῃ!

Aristophanes is no less rash at times. In K 349:

ὡς dpa φωνήσαντε παρὲξ ὁδοῦ ἐν νεκύεσσι

κλινθήτην
why the dual? he asks. Odysseus is the only person that has
spoken. Accordingly he inserts a verse of his own :

[as ἔφατ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀπίθησε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης,

ἐλθόντες δ᾽ ἑκάτερθε! παρὲξ ὁδοῦ----

Aristarchus, on the other hand, was considered over-cautious.
In I 222 the envoys to Achilles had already taken food, —if they
take it again it must be from a desire not to offend Achilles. He
believed therefore that instead of ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο the proper
reading was ἐδητύος ἂψ érdoavto. But respect for the manuscript
tradition made him refuse to alter the text—izo περιττῆς εὐλαβείας
οὐδὲν μετέθηκεν, ἐν πολλαῖς οὕτως εὑρὼν φερομένην THY γραφήν.

The essence of this textual method—when once the idiosyn-
crasies of the earlier scholars are swept away—lies in the respect
paid to manuscript tradition. This becomes the watchword of
the best scholarship of the ancient world till the times of Hadrian
and even later. Phrases such as 7 παράδοσις oidev ΟΥ οὐκ οἶδεν :
οὐκ ἔχει οὕτως τὰ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως (i. €. the traditional text), are typical
of the best critics down to Herodian. Herodian can even take
Aristarchus to task for violating his own principles, e.g. on
® 162 διελέγχει ἡ παράδοσις τὸν ᾿Αρίσταρχον. Strabo, Galen, Jerome,
and later writers show how sound an instrument of criticism had
been forged by the early scholars. None of them had such
a genius as Lachmann, but they were as well able as Bekker to
construct a trustworthy text. If manuscripts were bad they had
to make the best of them. But where they had the choice there
is no doubt that they did not choose the worst.

It is at first sight strange that their treatment had hardly any
appreciable effect upon the traditional text or vulgate of Homer,
while there is every reason to believe that it vitally affected the
fortunes of other classical texts. This is to be explained by the

38 GREEK TEXTS

unique position which Homer held in the Greek world long
before his text came into the hands of the Alexandrines. Other
writers (e.g, the Tragedians) appeared in collective editions for
the first time in Alexandria. And such editions tended to become
the standard texts for the future. But there was already a
standard text of Homer,—the ancient vulgate into which the
poems had crystallized during the early part of the fifth century
under the conditions which have already been described. It
was a text with faults which the Alexandrines successfully
detected, but with all its faults it was readable and served the
purpose of the general public of readers who then, as now, cared
little for the accuracy of the texts which they used, provided
such texts were cheap and intelligible. The elaborate Alexan-
drine editions of Homer were never intended for the general
public, but for the class-room. Their diacritical signs required
an oral exposition in order to explain them. Hence it is that
they represent the excesses of the critical methods of their
authors rather than the normal application of such methods.
In these works we see the professor with his pupils throwing out
a suggestion that may have come to him on the spur of the
moment, some hint at the truth which he divines, but cannot
prove, and would not wish to set before the larger public. The
normal application of the critical method is to be seen in the
other texts with which the Alexandrines dealt. These were
intended from the first for the general reader. Even if there
were no other evidence available, the mere number of authors
edited by a scholar such as Aristophanes of Byzantium, who
practically codified the whole of the national poetry, would show
that the text cannot have been seriously interfered with whea
once it had been elicited from the best manuscripts.

The scholars of the next fifty years after the death of Aristar-
chus carried on the tradition of the Alexandrian school. They
completed outlying portions of their predecessors’ work upon
the poets, e.g. the text of Sophron and Epicharmus was revised
by Apollodorus of Athens (cire. 150 B.c.). There is no doubt,
however, that the scholarship of this period is on its best side

IN ANCIENT TIMES 39

assimilative rather than original, while on its worst side it shows
a tendency to prefer the curiosities of learning. There were
trustworthy texts upon the shelves of the Alexandrine libraries.
A demand now springs up for popular editions with marginal
commentaries ; for grammars, lexica, and handbooks to metre
and antiquities. This demand was satisfied by the labours of
such men as Ammonius, Dionysius Thrax, Didymus Chalcenterus,
and Theon, the first commentator on the Alexandrine poets.
The limited outlook of such men and their lack of independent
judgement can be seen in such portions of their work as still
survive. A striking instance is afforded by the newly discovered
scholia by Didymus on the Philippics of Demosthenes (edited
by H. Diels and W. Schubart, Berlin, 1904). On the eleventh
Philippic (known under the title πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν Φιλίππου)
Didymus remarks that it seems natural to conjecture that the
speech is a cento made up of other speeches of Demosthenes.
Some authorities, however, state that it is really the work οἱ
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, and that it is to be found word for
word in the seventh book of his History of Philip (ὑποτοπήσειε δ᾽
ἄν Tis οὐκ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ συμπεφορῆσθαι TO Aoyid.ov ἔκ τινων Δημοσθένους
πραγματειῶν ἐπισυντεθέν. καὶ εἰσὶν οἵ φασιν ᾿Αναξιμένους εἶναι τοῦ
Λαμψακηνοῦ τὴν συμβουλήν, νῦν δὲ ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ὀλίγου
δεῖν γράμμασιν αὐτοῖς ἐντετάχθαι. Col. 11. 7). No modern scholar
could find such a statement in his authorities without perceiving
its importance for the criticism of the speech, and without
attempting to substantiate it or refute it. Didymus, however,
notes it as a curiosity which he found in some early ὑπόμνημα
(written perhaps by Hermippus the Callimachean, who is known
to have worked at the text of Demosthenes), and preserves it
without further inquiry. This temper of mind is common to the
post-Alexandrine school and their Roman imitators. It is seen
in Theon’s work upon Apollonius Rhodius, where his concern
is rather to dilate upon the ἱστορίαι in the poem than upon the
text, and it infects the work of Pliny the Elder, Valerius Maximus,
and Aulus Gellius.

40 GREEK TEXTS

II]. From the Reign of Hadrian to the Ninth Century A.D.

The reign of Hadrian (117-138) may be taken as the starting
point of the decay in Greek literature and Greek scholarship
which is in full progress by the reign of Septimius Severus
(193-211). Outwardly it is a period of good government and of
great material prosperity, but the spirit of ancient Greece, which
had struggled so long against the misrule of the Roman oligarchy
and had revived for the time under the wisely ordered system of
Augustus, becomes gradually crushed under the centralized
administration of the later empire. It was an age of material
aims, and these aims soon menaced the integrity of the older
literature. Men could no longer appreciate or even understand
the ideals of the past, which were embodied in works which
breathed the spirit of ancient freedom. For a time, indeed, the
classics survive as a fashion among educated men. But the
public which could find pleasure in them, and in the archaistic
imitations of them that were produced by a Lucian and an
Alciphron slowly passes away. Even while such a public still
exists it is clear that its range of reading is severely contracted.
Some authors gradually disappear (e.g. the Tragedians, with the
exception of the three; Comedy except Aristophanes; and the
Lyric poets except Pindar). Those that remain do not survive
entire but in selections or in anthologies,’ which rapidly lead to
the extinction of all parts of an author’s work that they do not
include.

The works of Pindar were arranged by Aristophanes of
Byzantium in seventeen books: the ὕμνοι, παιᾶνες, and διθύραμβοι
in six; the προσόδια in two; the παρθένια in three ; the ὑπορχήματα
in two; the ἐγκώμια, θρῆνοι, and ἐπινίκια in four. Plutarch knows
the poet’s works in this complete edition, and when Lucian quotes
from the first Ode of Pindar he means the first of the Hymns.

There is no doubt that the Epinicia with their personal

1 The earliest evidence of an anthology is found in Mahafly, Flinders Petrie
Papyri, No. Ill. 1, pp. 13-14. The papyrus belongs to the third century A.D.,
and contains excerpts from Epicharmus and the Anfiope of Euripides.

IN ANCIENT ‘TIMES 41

references to the Sicilian princes were by far the most popular
of the poet’s works in antiquity. Hence in the second cen-
tury, perhaps in the reign of Antoninus Pius, some unknown
grammarian separated them from the Alexandrine corpus and
published them with a commentary. From this separate edition
the modern text of Pindar is descended. Somewhat earlier than
this (cire. A.D. 100) a certain Symmachus had made a selection
from the plays of Aristophanes. A similar selection was made
from the plays of the three Tragedians. Its original compass
cannot now be determined, but it soon came to consist of ten
plays from Euripides (Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Hippolytus,
Medea, Alcestis, Andromache, Rhesus, Troades, and Bacchae); of
seven from Aeschylus and seven from Sophocles. Neither the
author of the selections is known nor the exact date at which he
made them. Apparently they are from one hand since they
betray a definite plan. The Septem, the Oedipus, and the Phoe-
missae are evidently chosen in order to be read side by side;
other plays are chosen for their easiness (e.g. Prometheus,
Persae); others because they form a good introduction to Homer
(e.g. Ajax) or a continuation of the story of Troy (e.g. Hecuba).
A rough inference as to its date can be drawn from the fact that
the collection in its present form was in current use soon after
the time of the sophist Philostratus of Lemnos, who lived under
Septimius Severus (193-211). He is the last author who quotes
from plays that are not included in it, such as the Oeneus and
Palamedes of Euripides.

Selections such as these were made for the school, and for
the few cultivated readers who did not lose all interest in
literature when they left the school for active life. For both
classes of readers a marginal commentary was now essential,
and such commentaries consisted partly of extracts from the
learning of the Alexandrines and partly of paraphrases. The
paraphrase was now a necessity since the Greek language was
slowly changing in syntax and in vocabulary. Such commen-
taries and paraphrases are of gradual growth, and the scholars
who compiled them are either unnamed or merely names.

42 GREEK TEXTS

There is evidence of a commentary on Aristophanes by Sym-
machus which lies behind the existing scholia. The scholia to
the Tragedians point to an origin earlier than the third century,
since it is only rarely that authors later than that period are
cited in them. It should be borne in mind that such works
were essentially compilations from the separate ὑπομνήματα to
separate plays that were in existence long before them. They
were rough variorum editions, and not ordered commentaries
written upon a definite plan.

Such selections and commentaries came from the less am-
bitious scholars of the time. The more ambitious devote their
energies to collecting the learning of the previous generations
into grammars, handbooks, and lexica. Scholarship ceases to
be discursive and becomes systematic. Apollonius Dyscolus is
the founder of systematic syntax. His son Aelius Herodianus
covers the whole field of research upon Accent, Quantity,
Orthography, and Accidence. The same method and aim is to
be seen in the treatises of Heliodorus and Hephaestion upon
Metre, of Zenobius on Proverbs, of Herennius Philo upon
Synonyms, of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias the Syrian on
Attic usage, and in the work of industrious epitomators, lexico-
graphers, and antiquarians such as Juba King of Mauretania,
Harpocration, Julius Pollux, Pamphilus, and Diogenian. On
its worst side their work is unprogressive, dull, and pedan-
tic. But it was founded upon the sound basis of Alexandrine
scholarship, and its very pedantry had the saving grace of
preserving with unreasoning fidelity what had been received.

During the succeeding centuries until the ninth, when the
present manuscript tradition begins, the Greek classics suffer
loss rather than serious corruption. The great losses, as has
been explained in the preceding chapter, occurred in all proba-
bility before the papyrus roll was finally superseded in the fifth
century Α.Ὁ. by the parchment codex. With the invention of
a practically indestructible form of book, literature was no longer
at the mercy of the material upon which it was written, and was
not necessarily doomed to extinction during a period of neglect.

IN ANCIENT TIMES 43

That losses occurred even after the introduction of the vellum
codex cannot be doubted. The anthologies which, it has been
seen, begin as early as the third century, continue to act as
a corrosive, and take an ever-widening range, as can be seen
from what is known or survives of the work of such men as
Proclus, Sopatros of Apamea, Helladios of Egypt, and Joannes
Stobaeus, who belong to the fifth and sixth centuries. Losses
must also have occurred from sheer neglect during the eighth
century—the darkest period in the history of the East, which
continues till the revival of letters begun by the Patriarch
Photius, and by Arethas Bishop of Caesarea and others circa
A.D. 850.

But throughout this long period of eight centuries the classical
texts were not extensively interpolated or reconstructed. An
indication of this has always been afforded by the best manu-
scripts, which are never without traces of the ancient learning.
Even where the manuscripts bear witness to a revision by
Byzantine hands, it is clear that such a revision was not
a drastic reconstruction. An instance of this is to be seen in
the Urbinas of Isocrates, which in the Busiris represents such
a revision by a certain Heliconius ἅμα rots ἑταίροις Θεοδώρῳ καὶ
Εὐσταθίῳ. All that these men have done is to correct their text
by the best and oldest manuscript available, since the text as it
stands shows that ancient rules are still observed, e.g. ἐκεῖνος is
always written except in the phrase ἢ ’xetvos. What is only
indicated in the manuscripts is proved beyond all question by
the papyri, which show that texts as they stand in manuscripts
of the tenth and eleventh centuries are substantially the same
as they were in the second and third.

IV. The Period from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries.

Two centuries before the conquest of Constantinople by the
Turks occurred another revival in literary studies which is
associated with the House of the Palaeologi, who reigned from
1261-1453. The most famous names in this Byzantine move-

44 GREEK TEXTS

ment are those of Planudes, Manuel Moschopulus, Thomas
Magister, Theodorus Metochites, and Demetrius Triclinius, all of
whom flourished during the first quarter of the fourteenth cen-
tury. There is, however, no doubt that behind many late Greek
manuscripts (e.g. Parisini B and C of Aristophanes, which belong
to the sixteenth century) lies the work of some Byzantine scholar
of this type who has remained anonymous. Such men wrote
commentaries, school books, lexica, handbooks to metre and
antiquities, as well as editions of the text of most of the greater
Greek classics. They were scholars and not ordinary scribes,
and there can be little doubt that both in what they effected and
in what they failed to effect they were closely analogous to the
scholars of the Italian Renaissance. Through the interest
which they aroused for the ancient literature, they were the
means of preserving the valuable manuscripts of the tenth and
eleventh centuries without which modern scholarship would be
helpless; but as textual critics they were too ambitious and
violent.

Unlike the scholars of the earlier Greek renaissance of the
ninth century, they laid a heavy hand on the texts which
they edited. Occasionally they were right, as were the Italian
scholars, but for the most part they defaced the text with trivial
emendations based upon their own inadequate theories of metre
and language. Their methods can easily be studied in the
older texts of Sophocles which were based on the recension of
Triclinius (preserved in Paris. 2711, and other manuscripts):
e.g. in O. T. 507 φανερὰ yap ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πτερόεσσ᾽ ἦλθε κόρα, he omits
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ aS otiose, though he leaves the line hopelessly un-
metrical: Ibid. 943 πῶς εἶπας ; ἢ τέθνηκε ἸΤόλυβος γέρων ; he heals
the metre by the feeble device of reading [που] Πόλυβος.

These texts were the first imported into Italy because they
were the most accessible, and for many centuries they continued
in use as the vulgate text. It is well to bear in mind when
lamenting the fall of Constantinople, that if that disaster had
never happened or had been long delayed, such texts might
have proved finally victorious to the lasting detriment of Greek

IN ANCIENT TIMES 45

literature. Such detriment indeed has been suffered by some
authors, as can be seen from those parts of Xenophon and
Euripides which depend upon fourteenth century manuscripts.

Thus the problem of textual criticism of Greek authors—when
once the ground has been cleared by a proper examination and
classification of the manuscript authorities—becomes largely an
inquiry into the condition of texts in the period of the Antonines,
and into the circumstances which led to that condition.

It is difficult at the present time to assess the permanent value
of recent inquiries that have been made upon these lines. As
has been pointed out already, each author presents a different
problem, and much work still requires to be done in editing
scholia, lexica, &c. before the conditions which govern some of
these problems can be ascertained. For, unless the problem
be solved off-hand by the discovery in Egypt or elsewhere of
some early and well-authenticated text, nothing is clearer than
that the only door to the ancient text is the ancient learning.
Since much of this ancient learning survives in scholia, it follows
that a text with scholia is far more trustworthy than a text
without scholia. Since the ancient scholars were more interested
in Verse than in Prose, prose authors have on the whole
suffered more corruption than the poets. A few instances of
texts which are typical of their kind may be taken to illustrate
these statements.

The early Elegiac poets (e.g. Solon, Phocylides, Mimnermus,
Callinus, Theognis) may serve as examples of a type of literature
which was neglected by the Alexandrines and their successors.
This neglect was due to various causes. None of these writers
were of the first class. They offered none of the difficulties of
language or metre which attracted the grammarian to the works
of other poets. They suffered further from the rivalry of
later elegists such as Philetas and Callimachus. Their works
accordingly survive for the most part only as fragments, em-
bedded in prose authors—where they are quoted to illustrate
history or philosophy—or as elegant extracts in Anthologies.

One alone of these authors—Theognis—survives in a state of

46 GREEK TEXTS

better preservation. Two books of poems are attributed to him,
the first containing 1230 lines, and consisting of poems dealing
with politics and morality, the second consisting of 158 lines of
love poetry which survive in one manuscript only, the Mutinensis
(now Parisinus Suppl. Grec. 388) belonging to the tenth century.
As soon as this collection is critically examined it is clear that
it contains much that cannot possibly be attributed to the poet
of the sixth century B.c. Many lines belong to earlier poets
or to contemporaries such as Solon, Mimnermus, Tyrtaeus, and
Euenus. Many of the poems that are incorporated in it are of
early date, many again are obviously imitations belonging to
the fifth century. Even where the text can be attributed to
Theognis himself, it shows every trace of early redaction or
adaptation, since divergent versions of the same passage are
often presented, the earlier in a longer form, the later shortened
and modernized in language. No doubt it is the book used by
Xenophon and Plato, but it is a book that has lost all resem-
blance to the original work of Theognis, and is a mere collection
of stray pieces analogous to the prose ὑπομνήματα that passed
under the name of Hippocrates. Here criticism is faced with
a hopeless task in attempting the restoration of the form or
language. The text has always been unprotected, and the
grammarians and lexicographers give no assistance.

Far different is the condition of a text which has not been
left to run wild but has been carefully edited at Alexandria and
protected subsequently by a long line of scholars. An instance
of such a text is to be seen in the works of Pindar. All the
manuscripts of Pindar are descended from a common ancestor
or archetype. They preserve a text which, though not the same
in extent, has common lacunae and common corruptions. The
best representatives of this text fall into two groups:

(A) = Ambrosianus C. 222 inf. twelfth century which
includes only Olymp. i-xii.
(B) = Vaticanus 1312, twelfth century and Laurentianus
32.52, thirteenth century.
The text which results from the recension and emendation of

IN ANCIENT TIMES 47

these manuscripts is singularly uniform. Its mistakes are not
due to the Byzantine period. The paraphrase given in the
scholia belongs to the second century a.D., and it is a paraphrase
of the existing text, which goes back through Didymus and the
older grammarians to the text of Aristophanes of Byzantium.
The injury which the poems have suffered through modification
of the dialect and spelling, through interpolation and other
forms of corruption, belong to pre-Alexandrine times. All
editors, therefore, who attempt to repair such injury on the
supposition that it is of later growth are working upon wrong
lines. Pindar is an exceptionally favourable instance of what
can result from an inquiry into the history of a text. His poems
were difficult and unique in style and form. The first fixed
point in their history remains fixed, since they were copied
mechanically by later ages and suffered little loss.

Few of the other great classics afford such definite results.
They were more widely read than Pindar for centuries after
the Alexandrine period. Hence the settlement which the
Alexandrines effected in their text was always liable to be
disturbed through the rivalry which sprang up between the
revised Alexandrine texts and the unrevised copies circulated
by the booksellers. For the time the Alexandrine texts drove
out of the market the earlier ‘vulgate’ or ‘proletariat’ texts
(δημώδεις). They certainly killed the extreme forms of corruption
that can be seen in the Petrie Phaedo and in some of the so-
called ‘eccentric’ or ‘nonconformist’ texts of Homer. But it
must not be imagined that an Alexandrine text presented an
undeviating form which only required faithful reproduction in
order to preserve it. In their ὑπομνήματα or commentaries the
early scholars left a record of the material on which they had
based their judgement. The variant readings which they had
rejected were mentioned as well as those which they accepted,
and such readings soon re-entered the text, restored perhaps by
subsequent editors or jotted down as marginal annotations by
the educated man who read the Alexandrine commentary side
by side with his text. Through this passion for collating one

48 GREEK TEXTS

manuscript with another, which is common to all ages, it is
impossible for one strain of tradition to survive uncontaminated,
if there are other strains to contaminate it. A text absorbs
something from every incident in its history. Whether or not
it is possible to reach the texts of the Alexandrines depends
largely on the part played by Alexandrine scholarship in the
history of a particular text. If it was the dominant influence in
forming the text, it may be possible to form an adequate idea of
the Alexandrine text. If there were other powerful influences
in competition the attempt to recover the Alexandrine text may
end only in naive superstitions.

Roughly speaking the first aspect of the problem is presented
by poetry, the second by prose.

There is no evidence that the work of the Alexandrines upon
Greek poetry was ever seriously interfered with. Comedy may
have suffered a little at the hands of the Atticists of the second
century A.D., but Tragedy remained untouched. The limits of
variation in a verse text are severely defined by the metre, while
the difficulty of the language raises it above the plane of
ordinary speech and demands care on the part of the scribe.
If, therefore, the scholia survive to protect such a text, there is
no reason why it should not represent the main features of the
Alexandrine recension. This, it is now generally believed, is
true of the texts of the Tragedians and Aristophanes. Where
the scholia are well preserved, as in the nine annotated plays of
Euripides and the seven of Aristophanes contained in the
Venetus, the text is of high quality. The text of Aeschylus and
Sophocles is faultier: it is preserved in late manuscripts and
the scholia are mere remnants of the original corpus. The
tradition is sound but there are not enough witnesses to it.
The text of the unannotated plays of Euripides (i.e. the Bacchae
and the nine plays found only in the second class of manuscripts)
and of Aristophanes exhibits all the defects of a text which has
passed out of the control of learning and must be dealt with, as
will be seen, upon different lines of criticism.

It is far otherwise with Prose texts, The Alexandrines

IN ANCIENT TIMES 49

expended less labour upon them than upon Poetry, and their
history has in consequence been more eventful. ‘The*meanest
scholar felt himself competent to revise them and the meanest
scribe indulged in conscious or unconscious expansions, omissions,
and emendations. There was always a rivalry between revised
and unrevised copies. The latter might be either the corrupt
descendants of some scholarly text, or trade copies tracing back
their descent to the bad texts of the pre-Alexandrine period.
There was no limit to the growth of variants such as was im-
posed in poetry by the metre. From time to time there is a
demand for a purer text, and some scholar makes his selection
from the mass of variants before him. It is as if the text were
constantly endeavouring to escape from the control of learning
and were as constantly recaptured. Such eclectic texts are the
parents of many of the best manuscripts now in existence, e. g.
the Bodleian Plato and the Paris Demosthenes. These manu-
scripts do not always represent separate traditions that are
earlier and better than the readings given by other groups of
manuscripts. They represent a text that has been normalized
at some period. It is now clear from the evidence of papyri
that behind all families of manuscripts (except, of course, such as
present the Byzantine recensions of the fourteenth century) lies
a text with an apparatus of variant readings. All manuscripts
represent a selection from such a corpus of variants and one
selection may be more successful than others. But though,
happily, the papyri support in most cases the readings of the
best family of manuscripts, yet they also recognize some of the
readings found in the inferior groups. It is clear, therefore, that
all readings which are not obviously late must be considered on
their merits and not adopted or rejected merely because they
belong to a particular group. Only where the balance of
probability is equal can more weight be given to the witness
who bears the best character for accuracy.

The works of Demosthenes may be taken to illustrate
the condition of the better prose texts. The manuscripts
in which they are preserved are of high quality, and the

473 E

50 GREEK TEXTS

text given by these manuscripts is largely confirmed by the
papyri.

Some of the Orations of Demosthenes must have been
published during his lifetime: others were not published till
after his death. Spurious works soon passed current under his
name. The first fixed point in the tradition of the text is given
by the Catalogue (πίνακες) of Callimachus in which the genuine
speeches were sifted out from the mass of miscellaneous speeches
which bore the name of Demosthenes. There is every indica-
tion that the work of Callimachus lies behind our present
tradition. Speeches which he condemned—such as the ὑπὲρ
Σατύρου and the ὑπὲρ ArpiAov—have not survived, although they
were recognized as genuine by good critics in antiquity. But
the work of Callimachus was only a table of contents and not
an edition.’ That there was an Alexandrine edition based on
the work of Callimachus is certain, though the author of it is
unknown by name. This edition lies behind the present text, but
it is not the only influence that lies behind the existing families
of manuscripts. It is evident that there were other sources of
tradition open to Didymus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and his
friend Caecilius—separate editions of single speeches which
traced their descent from pre-Alexandrine copies. Such copies
lie behind the text of the Third Philippic where there are parallel
versions of some passages, and perhaps behind the Speech on the
Trierarchic Crown. The Alexandrine edition was soon contami-
nated by such rival texts. Its text suffered at the hands of the later
Alexandrine scholars, and seems to have been mutilated through
the loss of the end of the Zenothemis. It reigned, however, as
the accepted text, sinking into deeper corruption with every
century. But scholarship throughout is constantly making an
effort to keep the text pure. Some such attempt seems to lie

1 Some have thought that Callimachus’ work was founded on an early edition
made in Athens soon after the orator’s death. But this is very improbable
since speeches such as those against Phormio and Dionysodorus have their
origin in this period, and could hardly have been included as genuine by an
Athenian editor.

IN ANCIENT TIMES 51

behind the tradition preserved by Harpocration and others of
a recension made by a certain Atticus (ἡ τῶν ᾿Αττικιανῶν ἀντιγράφων
ἔκδοσις), Whom some critics believe to be the friend of Cicero.
Another such attempt is seen in the ἀρχαία ἔκδοσις of unknown
date, which is referred to by the scholiast on the Midiana 133
and 147. Even if these editions were still extant they would not
exhibit a pure descent from the Alexandrine text, but only
skilful selection from the various readings which had overlaid
it. Neither is any one of the surviving manuscripts a pure
descendant of any of these editions. Itisa mistake to regard the
Paris MS. (3) as a legitimate descendant of the ἀρχαία or of the
᾿Αττικιανά. Though it is an excellent manuscript yet it shows
kinship with manuscripts of base descent. The Augustanus (A)
seems to represent the corrupt vulgate; yet not entirely, since
it shows traces of the good readings which are preserved in &.
The Marcianus (F) and a Parisinus (Y) represent a frank con-
tamination or mixture of the traditions seen in = and A.

Thus it is evident that no strand of the tradition ever remains
by itself. From the very first they have been intertwined. The
existing manuscripts of the highest class represent early attempts
at a disentanglement. But the men who made these attempts,
although they ejected many of the worst readings before them,
may equally well have ejected good readings which have been
preserved in inferior manuscripts.

Textual criticism, therefore, in authors such as Demosthenes
must be largely eclectic, and a reading must not be rejected
merely because it lacks the authority of the best manuscripts.
To go beyond this and to dream of restoring the Alexandrine
text is quixotic—at any rate, with the evidence at present
available.

If modern discovery and research lead to this rather unsatis-
fying conclusion they teach one salutary lesson. ἃ broad
distinction must be drawn between ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’
texts. A protected text, even though it has absorbed bad
elements along with the good in the course of its history, offers
only a very restricted field for the exercise of conjectural

E 2

52 GREEK TEXTS IN ANCIENT TIMES

emendation. Nothing is more significant than the fact that the
one papyrus of Demosthenes which corroborates the largest
number of modern conjectures is that containing the greater
part of the third Epistle. The Epistles were an outlying portion
of the orator’s works to which the ancient scholars paid little
attention. The text accordingly was unprotected and soon
suffered serious corruption. Few important texts are in this
condition. Among them unfortunately are the unannotated
plays of Euripides. These plays either stand entirely outside
the Alexandrine tradition, or more probably represent a portion
of the complete edition made by Aristophanes of Byzantium,
which has survived by some accident without the scholia which
have grown up round the rest. Their text exhibits a uniform
and undisciplined corruption, and in one instance—the Hera-
clidae—bears every trace of descent from a stage adaptation of
the fourth century B.c. Such texts afford a proper field for
conjectural emendation which, to paraphrase the words of
Wilamowitz,' ‘must be governed by an intimate knowledge of
the author’s style and of his intellectual environment and by the
instinctive and imponderable qualities of scholarship, taste,
feeling for language, and imagination.’

[The main authorities are :

Drerup, E. <Antike Demosthenesausgaben (Philologus, 1899, Suppl.-Band vii).

Lipsius, J. H. Zur Textgeschichte des Demosthenes, in Berichte d. kgl. Sachs.
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1893.

Lupwicu, A. Die Homervulgata.

RuTHERFORD, W. G. «4 chapter in the History of Criticism.

Usener, H. Unser Platontext (Goett. Gelehr. Anz. 1892).

Wiamow!Tz-MoELLenporrF, U. von. Euripides, Herakles. 1889, i. 120-219.

-—— Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Lyrtker ( Abh, der kgl. Gesell. der Wissensch.
su Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N. F., Band iv, No. 3), 1900,

—— Die Textgesch. der griechischen Bukoliker. 1906. |

1 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, //erakles, i. 216.

CHAP PER: ΙΗ

THE TEXT OF LATIN AUTHORS IN
ANCIENT TIMES

LaTIN texts, with the exception of the works of the early
republican writers, have from the beginning of their history been
well protected by scholarship. The early republican literature
was mainly dramatic, and made its appeal when it was first
composed not to the reader but to the audience in the theatre.

There is no reason to believe that such works were ever
‘published’ in any technical sense. There was no public of
readers sufficiently large to support an organized book trade
such as existed later during the last century and a half of the
republican period. Till about 169 B.c. the methods of trans-
mitting texts were as unorganized in Rome as they were in
Athens in the fifth century, so that the various forms of literature
which existed were at the mercy of the narrow circles of educated
men to whom they appealed. A technical work such as Cato’s
De Agricultura was annotated and corrected by those who used
it, and their alterations tended to become embodied in the
tradition of the text. Epic and Satire were less liable to altera-
tion since they were not in constant use like a technical hand-
book, and, though they were not exempt from the graphical
errors which are inseparable from a tradition preserved in
writing, they were not exposed to the grave corruption which
speedily attacked the drama. A play was written by a Roman
dramatist for a special occasion, and his interest in it and his
control over it ceased when he had been paid by the magistrate
who was conducting the festival at which the play was produced,
or by the theatrical entrepreneur (dominus gregis) whom the
magistrate ordinarily employed as his agent. Plays generally

54 LATIN TEXTS

became the property of these agents, who revived them from time
to time, and did not hesitate to recast them in form (retractatio)
or in language so as to render them more attractive and more
intelligible to a later generation of spectators. :

It is convenient to take 169 B.c. as marking the beginning of
a new period in the history of such early texts. It is an approxi-
mate date for the visit to Rome of the Pergamene Grammarian
Crates.

‘Primus igitur, quantum opinamur, studium grammaticae in ur-
bem intulit Crates Mallotes, Aristarchi aequalis, qui missus ad sen-
atum ab Attalo rege [a mistake: Eumenes was king|, inter secun-
dum et tertium bellum Punicum, sub ipsam Ennii mortem, cum
regione Palatii prolapsus in cloacae foramen crus fregisset, per
omne legationis simul et ualetudinis tempus plurimas acroasis
subinde fecit, assidueque disseruit ac nostris exemplo fuit.
Hactenus tamen imitati, ut carmina parum adhuc diuulgata, uel
defunctorum amicorum uel si quorum aliorum probassent, dili-
gentius retractarent ac legendo commentandoque ceteris nota
facerent.’ (Suetonius, De Grammiaticis, 11.)

This account was probably borrowed by Suetonius from
Varro, who as an admirer of the Pergamene scholars may have
exaggerated the influence exercised by Crates from a desire to
attribute to his favourite school the impulse towards philology,
which was undoubtedly felt at Rome about this time. It is not
in itself improbable that the earliest Roman philology should
have been of the Pergamene type, and have addressed itself to
questions of authenticity and aesthetics rather than to textual
criticism. But the influence of Alexandrine scholarship was
not long delayed if the statement made in the late tract De Notts
(Keil, G. ZL. vii. 533) is to be believed. The author of this tract,
which describes the twenty-one diacritical signs used by the
Alexandrines, has probably derived his information from a
treatise by Suetonius that is now lost. He says: ‘His solis in
adnotationibus Ennii Lucilii et historicorum usi sunt + uarrus
hennius haelius aequae + et postremo Probus qui illas in Vergilio
et Horatio et Lucretio apposuit ut in Homero Aristarchus.’
The corrupt names have been variously emended, but it is

ieaNCIENT “TIMES 55

generally agreed that they must include Vargunteius and
L. Aelius Stilo."

The influence of Alexandrine scholarship generated the idea of
a standard text which was to be preserved or recovered by an
appeal to the best documentary evidence available. This implies
a respect for the authentic text which is as strong in Rome as
it has been seen to be in Athens, and is not entirely obliterated
during the worst periods of the Middle Ages, such as the
eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Side by side with this scientific treatment of a text is the
tendency, stronger at some periods than at others, to fill in
lacunae, to smooth over difficulties of thought or language in
order to consult the convenience of the reader, or to satisfy the
ideal of perfection which some dilettante scholar had formed.
It is a tendency which is observable in all ages and in all
literatures, and starts with the demand on the part of the
ordinary reader for texts that are intelligible rather than
scientifically accurate. In this way the popularity of a writer
may militate against the purity of the text of his works. We
need go no further than our own literature to see the effect
which such a demand has had by producing the vulgate text of
Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Defoe. No permanent harm
can befall a modern text which has been corrected for the press
by its author. In ancient times, however, as has been pointed
out in the preceding chapter, any changes of text that become
current speedily infect the tradition as a whole. The tradition
accordingly may suffer serious damage unless the text is taken
in hand from time to time and purified.

We shall consider briefly some of the more significant stages
in the history of Latin texts, so as to illustrate the conflict
between scientific and what may be termed ‘vulgate’ texts which
was maintained till the seventh century A.D.

1 Cf. Fronto, i. 7, p. 20: ‘Contigisse quid tale M. Porcio aut Ὁ, Ennio aut
Titio poetae ? quorum libri pretiosiores habentur et summam gloriam retinent si
sunt a Lampadione aut Staberio aut Seruio Claudio aut Aelio emendati aut Attico
aut Nepote.’

56 LATIN TEXTS

The philological movement, the beginning of which Suetonius
attributes to Crates, was continued by Roman scholars and by
a number of others who, to judge from their names, were Greeks.
Cn. Octavius Lampadio edited the Punic War of Naevius, which
he divided into seven books; Vargunteius worked at the Annals
of Ennius ; Archelaus and Philocomus at the satires of Lucilius.
Even literary men such as L. Accius (ὁ. 170 B.c.), the last of the
old Tragedians, were swept intothe current of the new movement.
Accius dealt with Greek as well as Roman literature, and seems
to have busied himself largely with the somewhat unfruitful
speculations of the Pergamene school. But as he composed an
index of the plays of Plautus he must have attempted the more
useful task of inquiring into the authenticity of the various works
attributed to the early writers. Researches on these lines,
which continued right down to the great Grammarians of the
Augustan period (e.g. Verrius Flaccus), resulted in the formation
of amore or less scientific text. But while philologists continued
to be interested in these early writers the educated public lost
all taste for them towards the end of the second centuryB.c. The
reigning influence was Greek. And if there had been no revival of
interest the archaic writers would have remained merely as
a field for the exercise of learning outside the purview of the
ordinary man, and the oblivion which has overwhelmed them,
with the exception of Plautus, would have been anticipated by
several centuries. There was a revival of the national literature
in the Sullan epoch, due no doubt in part to the victory of Rome
in the Social war, which stimulated the national pride and soon
made Latin the paramount language in Italy. This revival
lasted throughout the lifetime of Cicero, who is a great admirer
of the archaic writers (cf. introduction to his De Finibus). It
survives into the early Augustan period and is unmistakable
in Vergil, but it soon begins to wane, and Horace is found
reverting to Greek models and expressing a contempt, that is
far from good-humoured, for the archaic writers.

The immediate consequence of this Sullan revival must have
been the production of ‘vulgate’ texts of the earlier authors.

IN ANCIENT TIMES 57

Dramatists such as Plautus must have suffered fresh adaptation,
and many of the variants which are found in the present tradition
may be as old as this period; e.g. Bacch. 519 ‘Quam si ad
sepulcrum mortuo zarres logos’ A: where P has dicat tocum,
where the Greek phrase has been altered because it occasioned
difficulty ; or M.G. 1180 ‘exfafillato bracchio’ P: ‘ expalliolato
bracchio’ A, which is not a graphical corruption, but shows the
substitution of an intelligible word for one that had become
obsolete.

Few texts have had a more chequered history than that of
Plautus, or show more violent fluctuations. But the same influ-
ences which distorted his text begin to work sooner or later
upon any text which becomes popular in an age subsequent to
that in which it was written. Less harm has befallen the great
writers of the last century of the Republic, because their history
does not begin, so to speak, with a period of licence in which
their text was exposed to irretrievable injuries, The conflict
between the authentic text and ‘vulgate’ copies arises for all
texts sooner or later, but owing to the care with which the text
was published in the last century of the Republic there was
always the chance of good copies surviving, to which later
scholars could appeal in order to recover the original words of
the author.

There is no doubt that in the last century of the Republic the
standard of accuracy in texts was high, and Cicero’s complaints
(e.g. Ad Att. xiii. 23. 2, Ad Quint. F. iii. 6. 6 ‘de Latinis (libris)
quo me uertam nescio, ita mendose et scribuntur et ueneunt’)
only show that the ordinary scribe did not always satisfy the
demands of the scholarly reader. One proof of this respect for
the authentic text of an author is to be seen in the treatment of
posthumous works. They were published with scrupulous care
and without additions or excisions. The unfinished poem of
Lucretius was published by Cicero, and according to Jerome
“emended’ by him, but it is clear from the present condition of
the text that such ‘emendation’ cannot have done more than
eliminate the obvious errors in the author’s draft. There is no

58 LATIN TEXTS

trace of a revision any more than in the Aeneid which Varius
edited (Suet. Donat. Vita, p. 64, Reifferscheid) by command of
Augustus, ‘sed sematim emendata, ut qui uersus etiam imper-
fectos si qui erant reliquerit’.

The same holds good of other posthumous works belonging to
this period and to the early Empire, e. g. Cic. De legibus ; Caesar,
Bellum Civile; Persius ; Lucan, Pharsalia (except i-iii); Statius,
Achilleis and Siluae, Book V.

There can be little doubt that editions of the archaic writers,
with the usual apparatus of Alexandrine signs, were current
during the last century of the Republic. They were founded on
the best documentary evidence available, and preserved, like
their Alexandrine models, the evidence of those documents even
when it involved the preservation of variant readings or of
collateral versions of the same passage.

The demand for such editions of the later writers does not
seem to have become imperative until the time of M. Valerius
Probus of Beyrout, a grammarian who flourished circa a.p. 80.
The age of Probus affords a fixed point from which to look
forward and backward in the history of Roman textual criticism.
The main facts concerning him are contained in Suet. De
Gramm. xxiv :

‘M. Valerius Probus, Berytius, diu centuriatum petiit, donec
taedio ad studia se contulit. Legerat in prouincia quosdam
ueteres libellos apud grammatistam, durante adhuc ibi anti-
quorum memoria, necdum abolita, sicut Romae. Hos quum
diligentius repetere, atque alios deinceps cognoscere cuperet,
quamuis eos contemni magisque opprobrio legentibus, quam
gloriae et fructui esse animaduerteret, nihilominus in proposito
mansit: multaque exempl{orum copia) contracta (i.e. many
copies which he had collected) emendare ac distinguere et
adnotare curauit.’ ;

From the passage quoted on p. 54 it will be seen that he
edited Vergil, Horace, and Lucretius.

Some considerable traces of his work on Vergil are preserved
in Servius, and as the history of Vergil’s text is well known, it
will be convenient to consider briefly what an edition like that

IN ANCIENT TIMES 59

of Probus effected and what was the condition of the text when
it called for such an edition.

Although Varius had published an authoritative and un-
questionably authentic text of the Aenerd, two influences com-
bined to produce a ‘ vulgate’ text of this and of the other works
by Vergil. (1) Soon after Vergil’s death (19 B.c.) his poems
came to form a necessary part of the curriculum in schools.
Q. Caecilius Epirota, a freedman of Atticus, is known to have
given lectures upon them in his school (Suet. De Gram. xvi.
Ρ. 112, Reiff.). The schools promoted an intensive study of the
text. Questions of exegesis, of punctuation, of consistency in
the use of words, would arise, which might never have suggested
themselves to the ordinary reader, and their solution might often
involve suggestions on the part of the master which would find
their way into the pupils’ text. (2) The Aeneid especially, owing
to its incompleteness, became the prey of dilettante scholars, who
were constantly tampering with the text by filling in lacunae and
clearing up obscurities by minute alterations. Often they sought
authority for their interpolations by maintaining that they were
in the original draft but had been excised by Varius. Owing to
the universal habit in antiquity of collating one manuscript with
another such contaminations must speedily have affected the
ordinary texts in circulation. It is against alterations such as
these that Quintilian (ix. 4. 39) protests: ‘Quae in ueteribus
libris reperta mutare imperiti sclent et, dum librariorum insectari
uolunt inscientiam, suam confitentur,’ (Cf. A. Gellius, xx. 6. 14,
on similar corruptions in the text of Sallust.) It is very signi-
ficant that Seneca appears to have read ‘ Audentis Fortuna iuuat,
piger ipse sibi obstat’ in his copy of Vergil, and Servius’ com-
mentary affords instances of other hemistichs that were similarly
interpolated (e. g. Aen. viii. 41). The prefatory verses ‘Ille ego
qui quondam &c.’ cannot be traced back beyond the time of
Nero, when a grammarian named Nisus said ‘audisse se a
senioribus (i.e. that it was traditionally reported) Varium . .
primi libri correxisse principium hi suersibus demptis.’ (Diehl,
Vitae Vergilianae, p. 20.)

60 LATIN TEXTS

Yet throughout the first century scholars had been working
at the text of Vergil. Three, at least, have left traces of their
work in later commentaries. C. Iulius Hyginus, a freedman of
Augustus, and contemporary with Vergil himself, wrote both on
the Georgics and on the Aeneid, e. g. he restored amaror in G. ii.
247 for the vulgate amaro, on the authority of an early copy ‘ex
domo atque ex familia Vergilii’ (A. Gell. i. 21): in Aen. xii. 120
for ‘uelati /ivo’ he read ‘limo’, the mus cinctus being an ancient
sacrificial dress.

lulius Modestus, a freedman of Hyginus, followedin his patron’s
footsteps. He devoted his attention largely to questions of ortho-
graphy, e. g. he insisted on the use of y to represent the Greek v.

L. Annaeus Cornutus, the tutor of Persius and Lucan, is
responsible for the reading (or emendation) ‘ multa nocte recepit’
in Aen. ix. 348.

These scholars are typical instances of the learning which was
expended on Vergil from the very beginning. Much of it was
sound and systematic, but much also must have been ill-judged,
supersubtle, and desultory. If the authentic text was not to
suffer serious damage and possibly be superseded by the
‘vulgate’ texts that were now current a thorough and systematic
recension was necessary. This is what Probus effected.

From the traces of his work which still survive it is clear that
he sought carefully for the best manuscripts. In the Georgics
he is said to have used a codex corrected by Vergil himself.

‘In primo Georgicon quem ego,’ inquit, ‘librum manu ipsius
correctum legi, urbis per 7 litteram scripsit. Verba e uersibus
eius haec sunt:

urbisne inuisere, Caesar,
terrarumque uelis curam.’ (A. Gell. xiii. 21.)

In Aen. xii. 605 he restored the undoubtedly true and ancient
reading ‘floros Lauinia crinis’ which has been replaced in our
surviving MSS. by ‘flauos’. But he was as ready as any
Alexandrine critic (cf. p. 37) to defend the tradition when he
conceived it to be right; e.g. ‘uadi dorso’ in Aen, x. 303, which

PN ANCIENT: TIMES 61

he compares with ‘dorso nemoris’ G. ill. 436. These may
serve as instances of what he and the best of his successors
understood by Emendation. ‘Distinguere’, which is also
attributed to him in the passage from Suetonius quoted above,
refers to punctuation: e.g. in Aen. x. 173 he placed a comma
after ‘trecentos’ in order to separate it from the following word
‘insula’. By ‘ Adnotare’, with which Suetonius concludes his
description, is meant the application of the diacritical signs.
These illustrate the conservative character of the textual criticism
which Rome had inherited from Alexandria, since they are
mostly used to indicate faults in the text which the editor found
in his documents but abstained from altering. A few instances
are here subjoined :
G. il. 129:

%*— muiscucruntque herbas et non innoxia uerba
Here the asteriscus cum obelo indicates that the line is wrongly
repeated from G. iii. 283.
Aen. Χ. 444:

| haec ait: et soctt cesserunt aequore tusso
the a/ogus indicates that he thought the construction of aequore
tusso to be corrupt.
Aen. vi. 782:

B imperium terris, animos aequabit Olympo
‘de hoc loco’, says Servius, ‘Trogus et Probus quaerunt’, i. e.
the query mark or phi rho was placed against the line to show
that the construction of Olympo was looked upon as suspicious.

There is no reason to doubt the soundness of Roman scholar-

ship during the second and third centuries a.p. Suetonius and
Aulus Gellius afford ample evidence of the scope and pedantic
minuteness of the researches of the grammarians of this period.
Arecension of Ciceromade during the secondcenturyis attested by
the ‘subscriptio’ found before the second speech De Lege Agraria.
‘Statilius Maximusrursumemendaui ad Tyronemet Lactanianum
et dom (?) et alios ueteres III. oratio eximia.’ This is evidence
that it was still possible to resuscitate the text of Cicero’s
speeches as originally published by his secretary Tiro.

62 LATIN TEXTS

In the fourth and fifth centuries the Roman Empire began to
feel the stress of two great forces that had long been latent—the
Christian Church and the Northern Barbarians.

Christianity, it is true, was not officially recognized as the
religion of the Empire till 391, when Theodosius forbade sacri-
fice and the performance of other pagan rites, but its influence
had been allowed to penetrate freely into Roman life and thought
ever since the Edict of Toleration published at Milan in 313 by
Constantine and Licinius.

It is often asserted that one outcome of the victory of Chris-
tianity was an intense hostility to the ancient pagan literature ;
and it is not difficult to find statements in the ecclesiastical
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries which, if they are taken
by themselves, lend colour to such a charge. ‘Ciceronianus es,
non Christianus: ubi thesaurus tuus ibi et cor tuum,’ are
the words of the voice which addresses Jerome (331-420) in his
dream (Ad Eustoch., Ep. xxii. 30. 4, Hilberg). Pagan literature
must be cleansed, just as the captive woman must shave her
head and pare her nails and put off the raiment of her captivity
before she is taken to wife (dd Magnum, Ep. |xx. 2. 5,
Hilberg). Augustine recommends the policy of ‘spoiling the
Egyptians’ (De doctrina Christ. ii. 40, Migne 34, p. 63). Cassian
(360-435) finds a ‘speciale impedimentum salutis’ in secular
literature (Con/atio, xiv. 12). Paulinus of Nola (353-431) finds
that there is noroom for Christ and Apollo in a Christian breast .
(Carmen, x. 22). Yet it is not too much to say that these writers
are one and all steeped in the classics. They write for an
audience who demanded and appreciated subtle artifices of style,
illustration, and argumentation. Contemporary with them there
is a marked revival in the study of pagan literature as attested
by the ‘subscriptiones’ which are still found appended to the
works of many Latin authors, whose texts are descended from
manuscripts written during this period. These subscriptions
record the revision of the text by one or more persons. The
terms most frequently used are /egi, legi fantum, emendaut, corrext,
recensul, cognout, contult, descripsi, distinxt, and in one instance

IN ANCIENT TIMES 63

annotaut, Records of this type! are found in the manuscripts of
Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Sallustius 395-7), Martial (Gennadius
401), Persius and Nonius (Sabinus 402), Livy (the Nicomachi
and Victorianus 402-31), Vegetius (Eutropius 450), Terence
(Calliopius, probably in the fourth or fifth century), Vergil
(Asterius 494), Horace (Mavortius 527), Macrobius (Symmachus
485), Martianus Capella (Felix 534).

Many of these revisers were men of birth and position.
Nicomachus was a ‘ praefectus urbis’ in 402 and was related to
the powerful family of the Symmachi. Domnulus was a ‘uir
praeclarissimus et spectabilis’ and ‘comes consistorii’; Asterius
a ‘patricius et consul’; Sabinus a young officer stationed at
Toulouse. They were not trained scholars, but aristocratic
readers who wanted a readable text. Their method was to
collate their text with older manuscripts, when they could obtain
them, and when possible they sought the aid of some grammarian
(scholasticus, magister): 6. 5. Mavortius is assisted by ‘ magister
Felix’. Sometimes they lament the lack of such assistance, e. g.
Sabinus says, ‘prout potui sine magistro emendans annotaui’.
They also complain of the want of manuscripts or of their
corruption, e.g. Eutropius says, ‘emendaui sine exemplario’ :
and Felix, ‘ex mendosissimis exemplis emendabam’.

These dilettante editors, although they use the technical terms

of scientific scholarship, are not to be compared with the great
Roman scholars such as Probus, Servius, or Donatus. But
their text was often constructed with care, e. g. it is to Mavortius
that we probably owe the readings manibus (for demens) in
Horace, Sat. 11. 3. 303, and praesectum (for perfectum) in A. P. 294.

This revival has often been interpreted as a reaction against
Christianity fostered by aristocratic families who were still
devoted to the old Roman culture. According to this view, it was
the hostility of the Church which reinvigorated the dying forces
of Paganism and preserved the Latin classics which now survive.
But this enthusiasm for the old literature continues into the sixth

1 A full list will be found in O. Jahn, Berichte tiber d. Verhandlungen der
k, Sachs. Gesellsch, der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., 1851, pp. 327-72.

64 LATIN TEXTS

century, long after the victory of Christianity had been acknow-
ledged in every department of life and thought. And nothing
is more certain than that the Church could have destroyed
everything that she was not willing to preserve. It is probably
nearer the truth to say that the Christian writers up to the first
half of the fifth century regarded the old literature, especially
poetry, with grave mistrust. As educated men they felt its use
for education and the subtle charm that it exercised upon the
mind, but its very charm seemed carnal and made them afraid.
Augustine puts on record that the exhortation to philosophy in
Cicero’s Hortensius first turned his thoughts to God, but he
adds, in a phrase which sums up the views of his whole epoch—
‘Cicero, cuius linguam omnes mirantur, pectus non ita’ (Con-
fess. iii. 4. 7). Jerome sees a possibility of scandal to the weaker
brethren if priests devote themselves to pagan literature.

‘Nec nobis blandiamur si his quae sunt scripta non credi-
mus, cum aliorum conscientia uulneretur et putemur probare
quae dum legimus non reprobamus . . . At nunc etiam sacerdotes
Dei, omissis Euangeliis et Prophetis, uidemus comoedias legere,
amatoria Bucolicorum uersuum uerba cantare, tenere Vergilium,
et id quod in pueris necessitatis est crimen in se facere uolu-
ptatis.” (dd Damasum, xxi. 13. 8, Hilberg.)

At the back of the minds of these ecclesiastics there was
doubtless the feeling that paganism—or, at any rate, the pagan
view of life was not wholly destroyed. The weaker brethren
were still in touch with the old beliefs. The temple of Apollo
still stood on the top of Monte Cassino when Benedict of Nursia
founded his monastery there in 529. The old authors could still
appeal to the Italian in a tongue but little removed from his
own: they spoke of beliefs which belonged to the history of his
nation and could still exert a noxious influence over weak and
ignorant minds. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the
earnest Christians of this age felt that to give any undue
encouragement to the older culture was like playing with the
embers of a fire that was not yet wholly extinguished.

Yet, if the revival of the classics was begun by the pagan

INV ANCIENT TIMES 65

aristocrats, it was undoubtedly continued by Christians. The
two aristocratic families which play a large part in the history
and literature of the fourth century are the Symmachi and
Nicomachi. Q. Aurelius Symmachus, famous as an orator,
administrator, and man of letters, is also famous as the cham-
pion of paganism whose protest in 384 against the abolition
of the altar of Victory is perhaps the noblest defence of a
dying creed that has ever been made. Virius Nicomachus
Flavianus, the consul of 394 and the editor of Philostratus’ Life
of Apollonius of Tyana, whose son and grandson revised the
text of Livy, was also a protagonist in the pagan cause, as is
shown by the Carmen contra paganos which was directed against
him. ‘Their families were connected by intermarriage, and both
champions of paganism must have stood in intimate relation
with prominent Christians. Symmachus was a connexion of
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan; he was a friend of Augustine, for
whom he obtained a chair of rhetoric at Milan; and his family
became Christian in the next generation. The aristocrats who
continued to protect the ancient literature during the sixth
century were beyond all doubt Christians.*

Accordingly, if it be true that the classical revival was pro-
voked by the victory of Christianity, there must have been some
other influence which caused it to persist. This influence was
the desire of the educated classes to protect the national culture
against the ignorance of the barbarians who poured into Italy
and threatened its civilization with extinction during the fifth
and sixth centuries. This desire to save all that could be
rescued from the wreck of the old order inspired pagan and
Christian alike. (The reconciliation, if it may be so ealled,
between Christianity and the Humanities is associated with the
two great names of Cassiodorus and Isidore. ὁ

Flavius Magnus Cassiodorus Senator (circ. 490-580) was a
layman who had risen to high office under Theodoric and
his successors. He had passed some part of his life at Con-
stantinople, and was perhaps influenced by the methods of

1 Cf, Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 125.

473 F

66 LATIN TEXTS

education which he had observed there. His scheme to estab-
lish secondary schools at Rome, in which a training in rhetoric
should be combined with a thorough study of the Christian
Scriptures, had failed through the death of his friend Pope
Agapetus in 536. Towards 540, however, he realized part of
his early plan by establishing on his.property at Scylaceum
(Squillace), on the east coast of Bruttium, the monastery of
Vivarium. The lines of intellectual discipline to be followed by
the brethren were laid down by him in his Jmnstitutiones diuina-
rum et saecularium lectionum. From this treatise it is clear
that he regards pagan letters from the same point of view
as Jerome and Augustine. The Church is still to profit
by spoiling the Egyptians (ch. xxviii). ‘Nec illud patres san-
ctissimi decreuerunt ut saecularium litterarum studia respuantur:
quia exinde non minimum ad sacras scripturas intellegendas
sensus noster instruitur’ (ibid. ch. xxviii). His policy is to fight
the devil with pen and ink: ‘contra diaboli subreptiones illicitas
calamo atramentoque pugnare’ (ibid. ch. xxx).

The instructions which he provides for the copyists in his
monastery illustrate incidentally the dangers which threatened
all texts at the time and the safeguards which were thought
necessary. In copying the Scriptures great care is to be used
in preserving the zdiomata, or peculiar phrases of Scripture
which are not in accord with the uses of the spoken language.
The style of the Scriptures is divinely inspired, and no attempt
is to be made to bring it into agreement with the rules of human
eloquence. The ‘incorrupta locutio quae Deo placuisse cogno-
scitur’ is to be preserved by an appeal to two or three old and
trustworthy manuscripts ‘duorum uel trium priscorum emenda-
torum codicum auctoritas inquiratur’ (ibid. ch. xv). Ortho-
graphy is to be studied in the ancient authorities as epitomized
by Cassiodorus himself. Punctuation is to be carefully pre-
served. In ecclesiastical writings other than the Scriptures the
text is to be treated according to the rules laid down for secular
literature. It is to be presumed, he says, that such writers
observe the rules of grammar which they were taught :

IN ANCIENT TIMES 67

‘commentaria legis diuinae, epistolas, sermones librosque
priscorum unusquisque emendator sic legat, ut correctiones
eorum magistris consociet saecularium litterarum. Et ubi-
cunque paragrammata in disertis hominibus reperta fuerint,
intrepidus uitiosa recorrigat: quoniam uiri supradicti sic dicta
sua composuisse credendi sunt, ut regulas artis grammaticae
quas didicerant, custodiisse iudicentur.’ (ibid. ch. xv.)

In providing for the instruction of the clergy in the liberal arts
Cassiodorus had no intention of preserving the classical authors.
Yet their preservation is due in large measure to the liberality
of the rules which he devised. It was not difficult for subse-
quent generations to overstep the limits which he had recom-
mended rather than enjoined, especially as he seems to have
encouraged his pupils to push their inquiries as far as possible.
In this way the study of Donatus and the Jopica of Cicero led
on to Vergil, and the clergy came to find pleasure as well as
profit in the profane writers.

The work of Cassiodorus as a mediator between the Church
and Antiquity was continued in the seventh century by a man
of equal industry, but of far inferior intellectual calibre—Isidorus
Hispalensis, commonly known as Isidore of Seville (cire. 570-
636). His family had been prominent citizens of Carthagena.
They had migrated to Seville, probably owing to the political
troubles which led to the destruction of Carthagena in 552.
His elder brother Leander became Bishop of Seville about 576,
and was succeeded by Isidore about 599 or 600. The
interests of Isidore lay rather in learning and education than in
dogmatic theology. He enjoyed the patronage of the Spanish
king Sisebut, and the sympathy and affection of bishops such as
Braulio of Saragossa and Ildefonsus of Toledo. His most
important work, which was to influence the education of church-
men for nearly a thousand years after his death, is properly
entitled Etymologiae, though it is called Ovigines in the older
printed editions, in defiance of the authority of the manuscripts.
It is an ill-ordered and uncritical encyclopaedia of knowledge
arranged so as to illustrate the seven liberal arts—i. e. Grammar,
Rhetoric, and Dialectic, with the four mathematical arts, Arith-

F 2

68 LATIN TEXTS

metic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy; passing on from these
to Medicine and Theology, and concluding with a discursive
survey of all the material bearing upon practical life in ancient
times. The work was left unfinished by its author, and was
published by his friend Braulio, who is responsible for the
present arrangement in twenty books. It is a harmless, desic-
cated antiquity that Isidore wishes to preserve as an instrument
for the defence of the faith. The great danger to the faith is
heresy. Heretics are cunning, and mingle false with true and
good with bad; they attempt even to recommend their doctrine
by the authority of the Catholic Fathers; they foist their errors
into the books used by the faithful (Sevfent. 3. ch. xii); better
Grammar, therefore, than Heresy (‘meliores esse grammaticos
quam haereticos’, ibid. ch. xiii) In themselves the profane
authors are harmful. The study of them inclines men to
despise the simplicity of Scripture and leads to intellectual
arrogance, while the figments of ancient poetry are actually
incentives to lust. To the monk they are to be forbidden abso-
lutely.

The importance of men like Cassiodorus and Isidore is that
they represent a movement which has been happily termed a
‘tacit concordat’ between the Church and profane letters.
Like other concordats it was forced upon the Church and was
grudgingly accepted by churchmen of extreme opinions. The
strict interpretation of the agreement required that profane
letters were to be used only so far as they were necessary, i. e.
for the purposes of education and for defence of the faith. But
this was a theory, as will be seen later (p. 96), which it was not
possible to enforce upon the educated laity in Italy. It was ἃ
theory which broke down in practice in the countries outside
Italy, because the dangers which it was intended to guard
against were too remote to justify alarm. To the Northern
nations, such as the Irish and Anglo-Saxons, Latin was a foreign
language. The profane writers were not read by the ordinary
layman, and could not contaminate him by memories of a glori-
ous but unchristian past. The clergy outside Italy could

IN ANCIENT TIMES 69

regard the pre-Christian culture with a detachment of mind,
which for the Italian was impossible.

The close of the seventh century, therefore, marks an impor-
tant stage in the history of Latin texts, since the main tradition
passes out of the hands of those who still spoke Latin as their
mother-tongue. Italy still remains the storehouse of the past,
but the scholars who use her stores are not Italians.

We enter upon the long period of mediaeval transmission
which lasts till the renaissance in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.

[The main authorities are :

Kenyon, F.G. The evidence of Greek papyri with regard to Textual Criticism,
Proceedings of British Academy, vol. i, 1904.

Leo, F. Plautinische Forschungen, 1912, pp. 1-62, for the history of the earlier
Latin texts.

Linpsay, W.M. The Ancient Editions of Plautus, 1894.

Manitius, Max. Geschichte der lat, Lit. des Mittelalters, vol. i, tg9t1 (in Miiller’s
Flandbuch der ki. Altertums-Wissenschaft, 1x. 2. 1).

TrauBeE, L. Vorlesungen, vol. ii, 1911.

Usener, H. Anecdoton Holderi, 1877. |

CHAPTER IV

THE HISTORY OF LATIN TEXTS FROM THE
AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE TO THE
ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

O beata ac benedicta priorum rusticitas quae plus studuit optima operari quam
loqui !—Agilmar of Clermont (ninth century) in Vita S. Viventit, Act. Sanct. Boll.
13 lan. i. p. 813.

Et quia uicarii Petri et cius discipuli nolunt habere magistrum Platonem neque
Virgilium neque Terentium neque ceteros pecudes philosophorum. .. dicitis
eos nec hostiarios debere esse... Pro qua re sciatis eos esse mentitos qui
talia dixerunt. Nam Petrus non nouit talia et hostiarius caeli effectus est.—
The papal legate Leo in 994 in his Epistola ad Hugonem et Rotbertum reges. Mon.
Germ. Script. iii. 687.

Cum ratio morum dicendique ratio a philosophia non separentur, cum studio
bene uiuendi semper coniunxi studium bene dicendi... Nam et apposite dicere
ad persuadendum et animos furentium suaui oratione ab impetu retinere summa
utilitas. Cui rei praeparandae bibliothecam assidue comparo. Et sicut Romae
dudum ac in aliis partibus Italiae, in Germania quoque et Belgica (i. e. Lorraine)
scriptores (i. e. copy7sts) auctorumque exemplaria multitudine nummorum redemi
adiutus beniuolentia ac studio amicorum comprouincialium, sic identidem apud
uos fieri ac per uos sinite ut exorem.—GerRBERT, Ef. 44 (Havet, p. 42).

Sunt enim ecclesiastici libri... quos impossibile est sine illis (sc. artibus)
prelibatis ad intellectum integrum duci.i—NoTKEr Laseo, ed. Piper, i. 860
(tenth century).

Cum cunctas artes, cum dogmata cuncta peritus Nouerit, imperium pagina
sacra tenet.—Joun or Satispury, Entheticus, 373 (twelfth century).

Quamuis Tullii libros habere desideres scio tamen te Christianum esse non
Ciceronianum. Transis enim et in aliena castra non tanquam transfuga, sed
tanquam explorator.—Letter to Wibald Abbot of Stavelot, circ. 1150 (Martene et
Durand, Vett. Scr. ii. 392).

Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos gigantium humeris
insidentes ut possimus plura iis et remotiora uidere non utique proprii uisus
acumine aut eminentia sed quia in altum subuehimur et extollimur magnitudine
gigantea.—JouN oF SauisBuRy, Metalogicus, iii. 4.

Nam de ignorantia ad lumen scientie non ascenditur nisi antiquorum scripta
propensiore studio relegantur.—PetTeErR or Bios, EZ. ror (twelfth century).

Quanto melior grammaticus tanto peior theologus.—(twelfth-thirteenth century.)

Calicibus epotandis non codicibus emendandis indulget hodie studium mona-
chorum.—[{Ricuarp ΡῈ Bury,]| Philobiblon, ch. 5 (fourteenth century).

Ii ne faut pas lire ces auteurs pour le plaisir ni pour la vanité et l’ostentation,
mais pour le besoin et Ja nécessité.—MABILLON (1637-1707), Tvatlé des études
nionastiques, p. 372 (Brussels, 1692).

LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 71

From the seventh century to the fourteenth the classical
writers survive, partly because they form the necessary basis
of monastic education, and partly because they find champions
from time to time in a few exceptional men whose aims and
interests rise superior to those of their age. The whole of this
period exhibits a conflict, suppressed at times but often overt,
between these more generous minds intent on classical literature
as the only source at which they can satisfy their intellectual
aspirations, and the ordinary churchmen who mistrust all
secular learning and endeavour to restrict its influence within
the narrowest range. There were fanatics on either side who,
as usual, tended to push their views to extreme limits. The
enthusiasm for the Classics which could preserve the satire of
Petronius and the amatory writings of Ovid was met by an
equally zealous dislike which lead to an attempt at various
periods to discard the Classics altogether or to remodel! them
for Christian use. This conflict will explain the seeming
contradiction between many of the quotations which have been
prefixed to the present chapter.

In theory the ordinary churchman was justified in his opposi-
tion. He was following the deliberate verdict of the fathers of
the Church from Augustine and Jerome to Cassiodorus and
Isidore. To them profane learning was only admissible so far
as it afforded a training for Theology. Cassiodorus and
Isidore, as has been shown in the last chapter, had provided
such a training by excerpting from profane authors an indis-
pensable minimum of knowledge in the expectation that their
pupils would be content not to ask for more. This knowledge
was contained as a sort of ‘harmless extract of antiquity’ in the
seven liberal arts which form the basis of education throughout
the Middle Ages. It is important to understand the scope and
implications of this system of education since it is one of the
strongholds of the opponents of classical studies during this
period.

1 e.g. Hadoard’s attempt in the age of Charlemagne to purge Cicero of
paganism ; v. Schwenke, Phvlologus v, Supplbd. 402 ff.

72 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

The system is Greek in origin, and dates from the conflict
between the philosophers and the sophists in Athens in the
fifth century B.c. In one of its aspects this conflict. was
between what may be called ‘ideal’ and ‘ practical’ education.
The sophists aimed at fitting their pupils for success in life by
teaching them the τέχναι or practical arts: the aristocratic
philosophers, such as Plato, wished to reject such a training in
favour of Philosophy. The younger Stoics effected a recon-
ciliation between these rival theories by making the Arts a
propaedeutic to Philosophy. Through the works of Philo and
of Martianus Capella this revised system of education is inherited
by the Christian Church, in whose scheme Philosophy is
replaced by Theology.

The seven arts are henceforward divided into two groups.
The first three (i.e. Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic) form the
Trivium—an elementary course of instruction leading up to the
Quadrivium, or the four arts which involved a knowledge of
mathematics, i.e. Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. /

In theory the Arts contained all that was necessary for
education, and were intended to supplant entirely the study
of the profane writers. In practice, however, they were not
sufficient, since it was not possible to disregard entirely the
ancient authors on whose writings the Arts were founded. It
is fortunate that as early as the ninth century the study of
the Auctores was grudgingly admitted as a supplement to the
Artes In truth it was difficult to condemn all the profane
writers as forbidden fruit. A reasonable case could be made
out for the retention of many of them. Some (e.g. Cicero in his —
rhetorical works) formed the basis on which the Arts were
built. Some again (e.g. Vergil, Ovid, Terence, and Sallust)
were useful text-books for the school. Others were admittedly
harmless, and at the same time appealed to national pride or
local interest; hence the tradition of Tacitus is confined to
Germany, that of Caesar mainly to France, while Frontinus’

‘ Cf. Servatus Lupus, Ep. i (a. pv. 830), ‘Cum deinde auctorum uoluminibus
Ρ )
spatiari aliquantulum coepissem.’

eed Het TALIAN RENAISSANCE 7

De aquis urbis Romae probably survived at Monte Cassino,
because the Benedictines who lived there were not far from
the great aqueducts which crossed the Campagna. Others again
were morally instructive, or even tended to edification, because
they exposed the hideousness of pagan corruption or contained
the seeds of Christian truth. Hence the high esteem in which
the satirists Horace, Persius, and Juvenal were held, and the
admiration felt for the philosophical writings of Cicero and
Seneca. But these utilitarian motives would not have sufficed
unaided to transmit more than a small fragment of antiquity if
in a few minds they had not been reinforced by more generous
sentiments. Throughout the greater part of the period extend-
ing from the ninth to the fourteenth century there was an inner
circle of intellectual churchmen who (often, it is true, with
uneasy consciences) did not pause to inquire too narrowly into
the utility of ancient literature, since they had come to love it
for its own sake. Among such are Servatus Lupus, Gerbert,
and Bruno in the ninth and tenth centuries, Desiderius of
Monte Cassino in the eleventh, and Bernard of Chartres in
the twelfth. These are the men who did for the West what
Arethas, Photios, and Psellos did for Greece. They were
Humanists before their time, and the worthy precursors of later
scholars such as Poggio, Traversari, and Valla.

The following brief account of the history of classical studies
in the West up to the time of the Renaissance in Italy will serve
to illustrate some of the more general characteristics which
mark the manuscripts of classical texts during the several
centuries of this period.

The revival of classical studies in Europe in the seventh
century was due in great part to the efforts of the Irish—or
Scotti, as they were called by their contemporaries—who from
the seventh to the ninth century came to the continent as
missionaries, and combined their zeal for Christianity with an
equal zeal for learning. Ireland had been converted by mission-
aries from Britain’ and from Western Gaul as early as the

1 Many authorities deny the influence of Britain. But they offer no explana-

74 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

fourth century. By the sixth she seems to have been brought
into close relations with the continent and with Italy, since the
Irish handwriting is only a development.of the half-uncial hand
in use in Italy and the romanized provinces at this period.
Her remote situation, secure from the incursions of the bar-
barians, was peculiarly favourable to the growth of secular as
well as ecclesiastical learning. The Church did not meet such
learning with suspicion, since it was confined to the clergy, and
did not affect the mass of the nation, to whom Latin was a
wholly alien tongue. There was therefore none of the fear
which haunted the early champions of Christianity in Italy that
the study of secular learning might lead to the revival of a
moribund paganism. The Irish could regard such studies with
the detachment of a foreign nation, and could isolate the best
elements in the ancient culture without imperilling the Christian
faith. We must not, however, rush to the conclusion that their
learning was systematized, or that there was at any time a large
store of classical manuscripts in Ireland itself. The work of the
Irish in copying and preserving secular literature was done on
the continent and not at home. Their instinct for scholarship
was only fully aroused when they found themselves in contact
with the neglected treasures of ancient learning and literature
that were still to be found in Italy and France.

In the seventh century their influence spread to the neigh-
bouring island of Britain and to the mainland of Europe.

In Britain they became the teachers of the Anglo-Saxon
invaders, who had recently been converted through the efforts
of Gregory the Great. On the mainland they attempted to
rouse the dormant energies of the Frankish Church by their
missionary zeal, and penetrated as the pioneers of religion and
civilization among the heathen tribes to the east of the Rhine.
Their immediate aim was the spread of Christianity, but there is
evidence that they carried their books with them and that the
tion of the fact that the earliest stratum of Latin loan-words in Irish is not

taken direct from Latin but from the Briton forms of Latin words. Vide
Thurneysen, /7db, des Altirischen, p. 516.

TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 75

monasteries which they founded became imbued with the
scholarly spirit of their founders. Two of these are of especial
importance in the history of classical learning—Bobbio south of
Pavia, founded in 614 by Columban, a monk from Leinster, and
St. Gallen south of Lake Constance, built in memory of Colum-
ban’s favourite pupil Gallus.

It is important to remember that many other centres of learning
in the Carolingian period (e.g. Luxeuil, Reichenau, Peronne,
Corbie) were directly or indirectly influenced by the Irish.

The influence of the Irish in Europe was to some extent
circumscribed by their lack of organization and by their con-
flict with the Papacy on certain points of ritual, such as the
date of Easter. Hence, although they are found all over
Europe as preachers, pilgrims, hermits, and scholars up to the
end of the ninth century, their work was the work of isolated
individuals, and often perished because there was no central
organization to provide for its continuance. The Anglo-Saxons,
who succeed in the eighth century to the position held by the
Irish in the seventh, were firm adherents to the Roman Church
and in constant communication with Rome itself—two conditions
which were highly favourable to their success as missionaries
and as scholars. Their first missionary triumph was in
Germany, where Boniface (675-754), a native of Wessex, was
the first to establish a Christian organization throughout East
Frankland, Thuringia, Hesse, and Bavaria. His influence was
preserved through many centuries in the great monastery at
Fulda, founded in 744 under his direction by his disciple Sturmi
of Bavaria.

Their second triumph was over the Frankish Empire newly
founded by Charlemagne.

The exhaustive inquiries of Roger’ have shown that there is
little ground for supposing that any considerable traces of the
old Roman learning and the organized system of education

which had distinguished Gaul till the end of the fifth century,

1 L’Enseignement des lettres classiques εἰ Ausone a Alcuin, 1905.

76 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

survived to form the basis of the revival of letters which took
place under Charlemagne in the eighth: The Frankish clergy
had shared in the decline of the Merovingian kingdom, and at
this period thought more of the chase and of the defence of their
temporal interests than of learning or of missionary effort. They
had been uninfluenced by the Irish, whom they regarded as
intruders, and were in no sense fit leaders for the intellectual
revival which Charlemagne, like Augustus before him, felt to be
the necessary complement to his new empire.

In promoting this revival it must be remembered that Charle-
magne did not look beyond the ideals of his own age. He was
a Christian king, and was prompted not so much by enthusiasm
for classical learning as by a praiseworthy desire to perpetuate
his own fame, and by the practical necessity of having an
educated clergy who could understand and preserve the chief
documents of the Faith and of its organizations, and perform the
ritual of its services with accuracy.' In order to carry out his
aims he was untiring in his efforts to attract learned men from
every part of Europe. Among these were the Italians Peter of
Pisa and Paulus Diaconus, the Irish Dungal and Clemens, and
the Spanish poet Theodulf. None, however, enjoyed such
influence and reputation as Alcuin, a highly educated Anglo-
Saxon ecclesiastic who had been head of the school at York
since 778. Two years later the Emperor met him at Parma in
Italy, and appointed him head of the Schola Palatina or Court
School. In 796 he was promoted to be abbot of St. Martin at
Tours. There, till his death in 804, he remained the central
figure in the intellectual revival which rapidly influenced the
monasteries of the Frankish Empire—Fleury, Corbie, Caudebec,
Micy, St. Riquier, St. Mihiel-sur-Meuse, St. Bertin and Fer-
riéres, in the West, and Fulda, Reichenau, Lorsch, Wirzburg,
Trier, Murbach, and St. Gallen, in the East.

The new movement soon escaped from the narrow limits
within which its originators had sought to confine it. Alcuin

1 «Deum rogare uolunt sed per incmendatos libros male rogant.’—Capitulare
of A. D. 789, ς. 71.

TO PRE ITALIAN /RENAISSANCE 17

himself seems to have had grave misgivings before his death,
and to have attempted to check the enthusiasm for the ancient
writers which his own teaching had provoked.!. The effect of
this alarm can be traced in the reaction against secular studies
which took place under Louis the Pious (814-40). Charles the
Bald (840-77), who succeeded Louis, was a man of broader
mind, the patron of the Irish philosopher Iohannes Scotus
(Eriugena), and of the learned abbot Servatus Lupus, the
typical humanist of the ninth century.

Born of a noble Frankish family in the diocese of Sens in
805, Lupus was educated at Ferriéres in the ordinary subjects
of the Trivium and Quadrivium, and finished his education by
a training in Theology at Fulda under Hrabanus Maurus, the
most distinguished of the pupils of Alcuin. He returned to
Ferrieres, where he became abbot in 841, and continued in the
office until his death in 862. His letters survive preserved in
a single manuscript now at Paris (2858 in the Bibl. Nat.). They
are addressed to many of the most distinguished men of his
time, to Popes Benedict the Third and Nicholas the First, the
Emperor Lothaire, Charles the Bald, Ethelwulf of England, to
Einhard the biographer of Charlemagne, to Gotteskalk, and
many prominent ecclesiastics. They contain many inquiries
for classical books addressed to his correspondents in York,
Tours, Fleury, Seligenstadt, Fulda, and Rome itself, and show
an acquaintance with the works of Terence, Vergil, Horace,
Martial, Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Suetonius, Justin, Cicero, Quin-
tilian, Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, Priscian, Donatus, Servius,
and Valerius Maximus. He is the first of those exceptional men
who love the classics for their own sake, and to him and to his
circle of friends is due in a large measure the overwhelming
importance of the part played by France in the transmission of
the Latin classics during the ninth century and the first half of
the tenth. One indication of this can be seen in the fact that
Cicero is now mentioned for the first time after centuries of

1 «Sufficiunt diuini poetae uobis nec egetis luxuriosa sermonis Virgilii uos
pollui facundia.’ (Alc. Vita, 10, p. 24, Wattenbach.)

78 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

neglect. To France belonged Gerbert of Aurillac (940-1003),
abbot of Bobbio and, for the last four years of his life, Pope
under the title of Silvester the Second. His love of classical
learning earned him the reputation of a magician, and this
perhaps explains the caution with which he justifies his studies
in the quotation given from his letters on page 70. There is
little doubt that the preservation of many of Cicero’s speeches
discovered later by the scholars of the Renaissance in French
libraries is directly due to Gerbert. It is known that the
Erlangensis of Cicero De Oratore was copied expressly for him.

Germany during the ninth century had felt to the full the
effects of the Carolingian revival. Educated bishops such
as Hitto of Freising (810-35), Baturich of Regensburg (817-48),
and Erchanbald of Eichstadt (882-912), were all collectors of
manuscripts. Many classical writers, e.g. Tacitus, Ammianus
Marcellinus, Statius (Sz/vae), Lucretius, Silius Italicus (Punica),
would have perished altogether but for the German manuscripts
of this period discovered in German monasteries by the scholars
of the fifteenth century. In the tenth century education was
fostered by the Saxon princes of the house of Ludolfinger.
Otto the First, the second prince of his line, was as great a
friend to letters as Charlemagne had been, and collected round
him a circle of learned men, among whom were Liutprand of
Cremona, Gunzo of Novara, and Rather, Bishop of Verona, and
afterwards of Liittich (Liege), one of the first of the mediaeval
writers to show an acquaintance with Plautus, Phaedrus, and
Catullus. The Emperor was warmly seconded in his efforts by
his youngest brother Bruno, his Chancellor, and afterwards
Archbishop of Cologne (953-65), who exercised an influence
upon education in Germany in the tenth century comparable
only to that of Alcuin in the eighth. The result of this influence
can be traced in the activity of monasteries such as Lorsch,
Korvey, St. Gallen, Hildesheim, Speyer, and Tegernsee.

To the eleventh century belongs the foundation of the
monasteries of Bamberg and Paderborn, but at its close the

TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 79

intellectual movement which had continued intermittently in
Germany from the time of Charlemagne had spent its force.
The normal monkish distrust of profane studies, which was
never entirely victorious in France, easily reasserted itself.
During the twelfth century churchmen with any tincture of
humanism become increasingly rare. Among the last is Wibald,
abbot of Stavelot or Stablot in Belgium, and afterwards abbot
of Korvey (1146), whose letters display a wide acquaintance
with Latin authors. The best minds, however, were gradually
paralysed by asceticism or became absorbed in the Scholastic
philosophy.

The earliest champions of extreme asceticism were the monks
of Cluny. This order had been founded at Cluny in Burgundy
in 910 by William of Aquitaine. It had spread rapidly over
Lorraine and Flanders, and thence to the west of Germany,
where the great monastery of Hirschau radiated its influence
over the whole of Germany. The influence of the Cluniacs was
disastrous both intellectually and politically. By their fanatical
devotion to the Papacy they precipitated the quarrel between
Pope and Emperor, which rent Germany asunder and involved
the clergy in what was essentially a political struggle, while their
rigid asceticism and mysticism led them to discourage the study
of profane literature as hindering if not actually imperilling
salvation. The spirit of Odo of Cluny (878-942), who could
compare the poems of Vergil to a beautiful vase full of noxious
serpents, was inherited by his successors. The little intellectual
energy that survived found its only outlet in the scholastic
philosophy which was introduced into Germany by Otto, Bishop
of Freising, the uncle of Frederick Barbarossa. The decay of
the twelfth century was completed in the thirteenth through the
influence of the Dominicans and of the Mendicant orders. During
the first half of the fourteenth century learning was at its worst
in Germany, and towards its close a man such as Amplonius von
Ratinck, the founder of the Collegium Amplonianum at Erfurt
(1412), to which he left his collection of manuscripts, is far in
advance of the spirit of his contemporaries.

80 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

The intellectual movements in France from the eleventh
century to the thirteenth proceed from three centres—Chartres,
Paris, and Orleans. The distinction between Artes and Auctores
which had long been maintained issues in the open conflict
between Scholasticism and Classicism.

Scholasticism in its best aspect was an attempt to unify all
knowledge by bringing the Arts and Theology—that is to say
the whole of human knowledge, whether acquired or revealed
—into a coherent and logical system. The main problem, viz.
the place to be found for Theology in such a system, absorbed
many of the finest intellects during these centuries, and the
solution was found in the reconciliation of the philosophy of
Aristotle with the doctrines of the Church. The systematization
of secular knowledge was, however, a task of greater difficulty.
Few of the liberal arts were sufficiently advanced for such an
attempt, and hence the efforts of the minor schoolmen were
chiefly expended on Grammar and Logic, the two arts where
the task was easiest since speculation was not greatly em-
barrassed by facts. In their hands Grammar rapidly becomes
a field for useless speculations and Logic a cloak for supersubtle
or futile distinctions. By the twelfth century Logic had come to
play such an important part in education that John of Salisbury
can say bitterly of the ordinary educated youth of his time,

Laudat Aristotelem solum, spernit Ciceronem
et quicquid Latiis Graecia capta dedit.
conspuit in leges, uilescit physica, quaeuis
litera sordescit: Logica sola placet. (Euxtheticus, 111.)

The worst result of this movement was to set up certain text-
books as authoritative standards (e.g. in Latin Grammar the
Doctrinale of Alexander de Villa Dei, +1240) and to discourage
the study of the ancient writers upon whom such text-books
ultimately rested. Fortunately for classical learning such claims
were not allowed to pass without protest. Nowhere was the
protest more effectively presented than at Chartres.

The school at Chartres had been founded as early as ggo by

peers 2 PALTAN RENAISSANCE 81

Fulbert, a pupil of Gerbert. At the beginning of the twelfth
century it rises to distinction under Ivo (+1115), and becomes
a factor in the intellectual development of France under
Bernard (+1126) and his brother Theodoric (fl. 1141). The
account given by John of Salisbury in his Metalogicus (i. 24)
shows the important place which Bernard assigned to the
Classics in his scheme of education:

‘ Poetas aut auctores proponebat et eorum iubebat uestigia

imitari ostendens iuncturas dictionum et elegantes sermonum
clausulas ... Historias, poemata percurrenda monebat dili-
genter .. . et ex singulis aliquid reconditum in memoria, diurnum
debitum, diligenti instantia exigebat.’
Men, he held, were like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of
giants, meaning by this that the wide range of modern learning
was only rendered possible because it rested on the learning of
the ancients. The practice of imitating the ancient authors,
which Bernard was not the first to recommend, undoubtedly led
to an improvement of literary taste. The refined scholarship
which marks many of the writers of this period can best be seen
in the works of Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours (d. 1134), many of
whose poems have been at times mistaken for genuine works
of antiquity. His most famous poem, an address to the city of
Rome, will be found in Stubbs’s edition of William of Malmesbury
(Rolls Series, 1889, p. 403). It is suggested by Norden (K. P. ii.
724) with some probability that the preservation of poets such as
Tibullus and Propertius is largely due to the practice of verse
composition by men such as Hildebert. The influence of the
learning at Chartres upon the text of the younger Seneca will
be discussed later.

The struggle between Arts and Authors continues in France
till the end of the thirteenth century. Chartres in this century
falls into the background and its place is taken by Orléans,
a school which had been founded in the ninth century by Bishop
Theodulf, the friend of Charlemagne. While the Sorbonne at
Paris was devoted to the study of the Arts, Orléans championed
the classical authors. The victory was for the moment with the

473 G

82 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

Schoolmen. But the prophecy of Henri d’Andéli,’ that the victory
would not last for thirty years, was fulfilled by the scholars of
the Renaissance.

From the above survey it will be seen that the two nations
which have contributed most to the preservation of Latin litera-
ture are France and Germany. In France the tradition is un-
questionably the more brilliant and continuous. Behind both
lie their Irish and Anglo-Saxon teachers, of whose classical
learning at its earliest period hardly any traces remain. The
manuscripts written in the Northern or ‘insular’ script which still
survive belong to the later period, when the emigrant scholars
had become identified with their continental pupils.

Two nations have been left out of account—Italy and Spain.
During the whole of this period Italy remained the central
storehouse from which the northern scholars drew their material.
With the exception of a brief period in the twelfth century, when
learning flourished and increased at Monte Cassino under Abbot
Desiderius, she was to all appearance indifferent or hostile to
literary studies. How far this is a true estimate of her position
will best be seen later in connexion with the Renaissance of
letters that took place in the fourteenth century (ch. v).

The influence exerted by Spain cannot be accurately defined
at present since the evidence is incomplete and has not been
critically examined. It seems certain that a number of African
authors—e. g. Dracontius, Corippus, and the collection of poems
preserved in the Codex Salmasianus—derive their tradition
through Spain, which, during the fifth and sixth centuries, was
intimately connected with the Vandal kingdom of Africa. It is
no less certain that Spanish manuscripts came to Bobbio and
Monte Cassino as early as the seventh century. In 711 the
victory of Tarik at the Guadalete destroyed the Visigothic
kingdom, and with it the civilization which Spain had inherited

1 A canon of Rouen, and the author of a mock-heroic poem entitled La
Bataille des sept Arts, of which an abstract will be found in Sandys, History
of Cl. Schol. i. 649; Norden, K. P ii. 728.

(9Str mi usagi 61 70f'9616 swiuvsf spuoy "SI Std W0.,J)
MUOA\ LV AAIMIS

Kar ΤΣ os,
ΣᾺ ALA COS a
OY iG EN

LAN SHI

A] 31V1d

£O THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 83

from Rome. The whole of the peninsula, with the exception οἱ
the mountain region of the Asturias in the north, which after-
wards centred round Oviedo, came under the Moorish dominion.
The presence of Spanish scholars at the court of Charlemagne
seems to show that the defeated Christian civilization found
a refuge in France and doubtless influenced French learning.
But it is impossible to gauge the extent of that influence until
the history and character of the Visigothic manuscripts that are
still in existence have been thoroughly investigated.

It remains to consider the methods of the mediaeval scholars
and to try to see how far their ignorance or their learning has
affected the texts which they have preserved.

Throughout the whole of the mediaeval period the method of
copying manuscripts must have remained very much the same.
The monk sat at his sloping desk (f/uteus or carola) in the
scriptorium or in the cloister, with the light falling from the left.
At his side, or above him, was the book which he was copying—
borrowed perhaps from a neighbouring monastery, perhaps
purchased from some Norman pirate who had plundered it from
one of the Northern houses, perhaps part of the travelling
library of some Irish missionary which had been dispersed after
his death. This original is kept flat by a weight suspended by
a string. A similar weight holds in place the sheet of parch-
ment on which he is writing. In his right hand is his pen,
a quill (penna), except perhaps in Italy, where the reed (calamus,
canna) still survived; in his left a penknife (scriptural) set in
a wooden handle, serving not only to sharpen the pen but also
to keep the parchment firm and to smooth down any irregularities
on its surface. If he is a scribe at Bobbio or St. Gall he may
be writing not upon fresh parchment (which was costly, and
often difficult to procure) but upon renovated parchment or
‘palimpsest’ taken from some older manuscripts from which the
original writing has been removed."

1 One method of preparing such palimpsests was to soak the parchment

thoroughly in milk, powder it with flour to prevent wrinkles, and dry it under
pressure. When dry it was scoured with pumice and chalk till a white surface

G2

84 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

The smallest units out of which a codex can be constructed are
single sheets of vellum, folded into two leaves or folia. This
doubled sheet is termed the diploma, or in some late mediaeval
writers the arcus. In practice, however, the unit is a gathering
or quire consisting of more than one of these folded sheets.
The number of sheets in such a quire varies normally from two
to six. Within these limits we find the following names for the
quires: Binions, Ternions, Quaternions, Quinternions, Sex-
ternions, which provide respectively 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 pages
(i.e. surfaces for writing) and half these numbers of leaves.
Neither page nor leaves are numbered in the earlier mediaeval
codices.’ The quires, however, are generally marked in the
left-hand corner of the lower margin by signatures, which
consist of numbers or letters, the letter ‘q’ being a general
designation for any kind of quire that was used. Often the con-
nexion between the various quires is indicated by catchwords
(reclamantes), i. e. the first word of a new quire is repeated below
the last line of the preceding quire. The quires that are most in
use are Quaternions?: but it was often found convenient for
various reasons to insert quires of different sizes.

The size and arrangement of the quires often provide im-
portant evidence for the age and history of a codex.

Before writing the scribe tries his pen, often on the margin of

was secured. The attempt in modern times to recover the original writing by
means of chemical reagents usually ends in destroying the manuscript or in so
blackening it as to render it illegible. The monks do not appear to have had
any special animus against classical authors, in using ancient codices as palim-
psests. Any codex no longer in use might be taken for this purpose, e.g.
Vindobonensis 17 originally contained an uncial text of the Bible, but was
used in the ninth century for the works of Probus and other grammarians.

1 For convenience of reference a codex is now generally ‘foliated’, i.e.
a nuinber is pencilled in the upper corner of the leaf which is to the right of
the reader as the book lies open before him. This number designates both
sides or pages of the leaf, the front page being called the recto, and back page
the verso. Thus a page is cited as Fol. 4 r(ecto) or Fol. 4 v(erso), or more
shortly as F. 4 or F. q’.

2 The word ‘quire’ is not, as often stated, derived from quaternio (which
would give carregnon), but from quaternum = a book of four leaves: Ital.
quaderno (Fr. cahtey has borrowed the suffix of adjectives in -arius).

PO THE TTALIAN RENAISSANCE 85

the exemplar which he is copying, and often with a jesting line
such as ‘probatio penne non sit mihi pena Gehenne’. If there
were no other evidence the frequency of these probationes pennae
would show that manuscripts were copied and not dictated during
the Middle Age. There was, indeed, little need for dictation.
Generally the scribe could perform his work at his leisure. If, as
occasionally happened, a copy had to be made in haste, the
original was taken to pieces and its quires distributed among
a number of scribes. An interesting example of this method
can be seen in Vaticanus Reginensis 762, a manuscript of Livy
copied at Tours in the ninth century from Parisinus 5730 (the
codex known as the Puteaneus), which belongs to the fifth century.
In order to save time the original was divided between seven
monks who worked simultaneously, each at the portion assigned
to him. The two facsimiles which are here reproduced show
the original and the copy made by a monk named Ansoaldus,
who has signed his name at the foot of the page and has added
the letters ‘q. il’ to indicate that this was the second quaternion
copied by him. Similar instances of the employment of several
scribes will be found in Parisinus 12236, a manuscript of the
works of Eucherius, and in Parisinus 10314, a codex of Lucan’s
Pharsalia belonging to the ninth century.

In the ninth and tenth centuries there is no doubt that the
greatest care was taken to secure accurate copies. Itisa fortunate
chance that quite half of the surviving Latin classics are preserved
in manuscripts of these centuries.!. The condition of the few texts
which the Merovingians had preserved must have been exceed-
ingly corrupt, as can be seen from a handbook to prosody com-
posed during the extreme decadence of the seventh and eighth
centuries.” It consists of an anthology of lines from Latin poets,
chosen so as to illustrate the prosody of certain words. Even
when allowance is made for the difficulty in preserving the
accuracy of lines which are divorced from their context, the

1 Cf. F. W. Shipley, Certain Sources of Corruption in Lat. MSS., p. 5.
2 E. Chatelain in Rev. de Phil., 1883, p. 65.

86 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

depth of corruption and ignorance which the collection displays
is almost incredible: e.g. Martial vi. 77. 4 ‘Quid te Cappadocum
sex onus esse iuuat’, appears as ‘Quid te Cappadocum Saxonus
esse’; ib. v. 34. 7 ‘Inter tam ueteres ludat lasciua patronos’,
as ‘Intérim ueteres laudat’, ἅς. The Carolingian scholars and
their immediate successors brushed aside such meaningless
rubbish as this and reverted to the purer tradition preserved by
the contemporary Irish and Anglo-Saxons or by the earlier
Italian scholarship. Yet even with such originals care was
necessary. The Irish were notoriously careless in orthography,’
and Italian manuscripts, as can be seen from the early fragments
which still survive, are by no means free from serious mistakes.
In order to secure accuracy the scribe’s work was corrected
when complete by the best scholar who could be found in the
monastery. The correction took the form of Punctuation,
Orthography, and Collation, the three functions of textual
criticism as practised in antiquity and frequently mentioned in
the recensions of the Theodosian epoch (cf. p. 62). Among
Alcuin’s poems is one® in which there is a description of
a scriptorium where monks are engaged in copying the sacred
writings. Careful punctuation and observance of the proper
sections is there enjoined upon the scribes :

Correctosque sibi quaerant studiose libellos
tramite quo recto penna uolantis eat.

per cola distinguant proprios et commata sensus
et punctos ponant ordine quisque suo.

This advice only repeats in part what Jerome lays down in his
preface to his translation to Isaiah—‘ sed quod in Demosthene et
Tullio solet fieri ut per cola scribantur et commata, nos quoque
utilitati legentium prouidentes interpretationem nouam nouo
scribendi genere distinximus.’ Manuscripts of Cicero belonging
to the ninth century still exist written with co/a and commata,

1 e.g. the writing of single consonants for double, or double for single,
Affrica, pressul, ingresus, sagita: cf. Ἐς E. Warren, Antiphonary of Bangor,
p. xxiv, and Mon, Germ, poet. lat. 111, p. 795 (Traube).

* Diimmler, Poet, Lat. aevi Carolini, i, xciv, p. 320, Migne cr, col. 745.

PLATE VI

ae . WS xu . te τῷ
: ἜΣ
5 Faas:
© canoshxudminus BERCEAEKSC FACTA
TERREDINTINACOS PlusOMNIBUSAUT
© JOUISFORBUSIPSIS NUNTITISPEREGRE
~ Vaopen bp siancues MUTUIS|SOOMII PRODI
BATDONUNTIAILM GHSTERRUTANINMOS
WSTCRIENTASSPICAS hominuny
METENHBUSUISASES Jqnyisyprxcocues De
SECHEREPORCU SB). CXTINCTISCAESAQ:
CEPFES NUS AAS) FRAG RO|ESIUESTAS
_ SEMQGUCEFEMINAN» UNSCUSTOSAEJUS
PNIRERIS E RAGETALB XE ONOCTISFUERATIUSSU
MMOSOLESENSOSFERE Ρ- ΟΜ PONTUFICS
BANTLELNOCICF Rese! JOGUAM QUANDNIHIL
AED IOPORAAL | PORTENOENTIB-Oe}s
MGR # CETERUMINES LECEN
TMAbumMsN ee 3
RATIMENETIVOSTIS

MMORIBUSPROCORA
RIETSUPPUCATIONE
AOUCSDEHABERIPLA
CUIT ΡΟΝ
PROFICISCeRENTUR
CONS GULESAOBEIIUD)
MONITIASENATUSU
Nic ROspeobu, __
Cenoreplem SEAR

PARISINUS 5730: SAEC. V, FOL. 355
(Liv. xxviii. 11. 2-8)

Prare. Vil

RT TEM a co =
τ ΚΝ τ nak See Ὰ
Bee τν ΡΝ ΕΑΔ ΤΣ

τ ποτυτΑςισιλες rousaedern fagremenr” canorhaud nunufre )
rebanc Inge dem rout forbuptit duoperteepyi anguer™ af
Reb wire ranrciacum eft eruennd {(picafmercenaubufius ς = n= !
fecaere porcul bicep agnufmatider quefommanacupie
Orat ec clbaeduofolerutor ferebartc ernocee frecelliy 4
ἴω του OP Ora <bormagro TOMANO loareur OC ceric nep
τὸ rnulco piccneef Te fadore marco flaminio dicebany~
ec aedecere;-1 falucguirint deceelotaccac rodigicecon ᾿
fulef hoftufmciorbul procurarc turn <fubplicaae
nem unum diem Labere CALXSE- factaplufom ibe
Aut EET ΕΣ PET TA Auriafifdorn prodigul terme 4
Animof bhominum Sel maeduc ueftae exuncai? ©
Aeraq: Fragroettuettedf us cuftod icc es Nocar 4
fuerar wifu P- liciumo Pormaficy- tdqucemn quam nthilpo~ ἘῚ
cendennbufder ceCerum neglegencid burana accide
AL τισι «hoftul maorbur procurar ἘΠ
parton <cAuesice buber plecur ΤΥ quan profier |
Cceretta4y, confuler adh mt mora Afenaru (Uupse Ἢ
Ἣν απ magrofredducende plebW curam}),cberent deum
benign cecte- fur moron bellum adurberomapa cla
τισ erfe povve finecon uemre ficiuae quam twecliace
colendae mALOrEM curun efve fedrer baue quaquam
erat populo ει: biberfculzo mbar Lelloapriumpay
| Simopice fPrurmorum <pecore du-epmo alliggque ders: |
, tf aur imcennys MAgnATAMLEN port AUctOritare conti
᾿ — ben compulftc Inagre renugraut MNOUtrATTALCCM
ek "νει cere. merrmonemn placentinorun cremonen
= Sturm leas querentel agrunifiuum abmcolir gellar
; ancurfArt Acuaftari IERTIAT GUC PATEIN colonorurmn

|
ia 2 ; ε
Ε 4 ar Ἶ
Ἵ : teutlarcuf
anda v6 κι
Ι / ἈΝ τ. ; δος ὁ

VaTICANUS REGINENSIS 762: SAEC. IX, FOL. ΖΟΙΥ͂

(Liv. XXviii. τι. 2-10)

ἜΘ fee TTALIAN RENAISSANCE 87

i.e. in large or small sections corresponding to the sense, an
arrangement intended to facilitate reading aloud by marking
the appropriate pauses. More important was the ordinary system
of punctuation which Alcuin did his best to reintroduce: ‘ Pun-
ctorum uero distinctiones uel subdistinctiones licet ornatum
faciant pulcherrimum in sententiis, tamen usus illorum propter
rusticitatem pene recessit a scriptoribus ... Horum usus
in manibus scribentium redintegrandus esse optime uidetur.’
(Mon. Germ. Hist. Epp. Karolini aevi, ii. p. 285, 1. 16.)

The question of Orthography had exercised Cassiodorus in
the sixth century. He had made selections from the ancient
grammarians and embodied them in a short treatise for the use
of his scribes. This treatise, which still survives, served as
a guide to later copyists, and was supplemented by similar works
written by Bede and Alcuin. The subscription in the manu-
scripts of the Carolingian epoch often indicates the care which
has been taken with the orthography, e.g. in one of the
manuscripts written for Archbishop Baturich (817-48) the note
is added : ‘scriptus est diebus septem et in octauo correctus...
Hildoino orthografiam praestante.’ (Cod. Monacensis lat. 437.)
The results of such orthographical correction can be seen on
a small scale in the Vatican Livy that has been mentioned above,
e.g. the spellings suPPLICATIO, ABSUMTIS in the original Puteaneus
have been altered to subplicatio, apsumtis. The practice of collat-
ing one manuscript with another can best be illustrated from the
letters of Servatus Lupus, e.g. Ep. 104, written about the year
846, ‘Catilinarium et Iugurthinum Sallustii librosque Verrinarum,
et, si quos alios uel corruptos nos habere uel penitus non habere
cognoscitis, nobis afferre dignemini: ut uestro beneficio et
uitiosi corrigantur et non habiti acquirantur.’ 42. 69 (A. D. 847)
‘Tullianas epistolas quas misisti cum nostris conferri faciam ut
ex utrisque si possit fieri ueritas exsculpatur.’ The effect of such
collations made by some unknown scholar of the ninth century
can still be traced in the text of Justin and Valerius Maximus.
The work of Valerius exists in the complete form, and also in an
epitome made by Julius Paris in the fifth century before Christ.

88 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

This epitome was made from a good and early manuscript.
The scribes of the ninth century have seen that it sometimes
provides readings superior to those which were current in
the ordinary copies of the complete text and have not hesitated
to transfer them. The effect of such a collation can be seen in
the Bernensis 366, the best surviving manuscript of the complete
text. The care shown by Grimwald and Tatto in order to secure
an accurate copy of the rule of St. Benedict will be described in
a later chapter (p. 109).

It is not probable that these efforts at textual criticism effected
much except by a fortunate accident. Manuscripts were rare
and jealously guarded. Systematic comparison was impossible,
and the level of scholarship, even among the greatest enthusiasts
for learning such as Alcuin and Lupus, was not high. The
helplessness of the scholars of this period in face of a gravely
corrupted text is well illustrated by Dicuil, an Irishman who in
825 composed a work entitled De Mensura Orbis Terrae. In
the preface he complains of the corrupt condition of the contem-
porary copies of the works of Pliny the Elder. ‘Ubi in libris
Plinii Secundi corruptos absque dubio numeros fieri cognouero
loca eorum uacua interim fore faciam ut si non inuenero certa
exemplaria quicunque reppererit emendet. Nam ubi dubitauero
utrum certi necne sint numeri sicut certos crassabo (i. 6. χαράσσω,
‘to write”) ut praedictus quisquis uerosuiderit ueracitercorrigat.’
(ed. Parthey, pro/. §. 4.) Similar complaints are not unfrequent
at this period. A ninth-century manuscript of Quintilian now at
Zirich has the subscription :

Tam male scribenti tam denique desipienti
absque exemplari frustra cogor medicari.

It is fortunate that the utter decay of scholarship under the
Merovingians forced their successors to go far afield and search
for the best manuscripts that were then in existence. Ifa large
portion of Latin literature had survived in Gaul after filtering
through the ignorance and barbarism of the sixth and seventh
centuries the scholars of the ninth and tenth might have wasted

TO TRE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 89

their energies in producing interpolated texts, such as the scholars
of the Italian Renaissance were forced to produce, and the
remnants of sound texts in Ireland, England, and Italy might
have been lost beyond recovery.'

The immense services rendered by the Carolingians to the
Latin classics consist, therefore, not in their attempts at recen-
sion which could never be systematic, but in the accuracy with
which they copied the good manuscripts which were still
accessible, and in the legibility of the script in which they copied
them. The last service is equally important with the first. At
Tours, Fleury, Micy, and elsewhere in France, there was evolved
from the ugly Merovingian script, with its numberless ligatures
and contractions, and from other sources? the handwriting
known as the ‘Caroline minuscule’. This clear and beautiful
alphabet, in which every letter is distinctly formed, spread
rapidly over the whole of Europe, and is the parent of the
modern script and print which is still used by the majority of
the Western nations. The difficulty of the earlier hands such as
the Uncial and Half Uncial had often been severely felt. Boniface
(Mon. Germ. Hist. Epp. Karolini aevi, i. p. 329, 1. 32) asks a friend
for a Bible written ‘claris et absolutis litteris.. .. Quia caligantibus
oculis minutas litteras ac connexas clare discere non possum.’ ®
If a difficult handwriting such as the Irish had been widely
adopted in early times the havoc wrought in Latin texts by
slovenly monkish scribes during the later period would have
been much greater. Even the painstaking scholars of the Re-
naissance were completely at a loss when they were confronted
with the Irish hand or the Lombardic (e.g. in Tacitus).

The soundest texts—with the exception of the few fragments
of greater antiquity that are preserved—are those which are

1 The legends of the Saints which have descended from Merovingian copies
have all suffered violent treatment in order to render them intelligible.
Wattenbach, Schriftwesen, p. 331.

2 L. Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 25 seq.

8 Cf. Wattenbach, Schriftwesen, p. 440, who quotes an instance of a papal
Bull found at Tours in 1075 ‘sed quia erat Romana littera (probably “ half-
uncial ’’) scriptum, non poterat legi’.

go LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

attested by manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. The
succeeding centuries witness only an increase in corruption.
This corruption was inevitable and progressive, because, as has
been seen, there was no continuity in classical studies. If the
spirit of the Carolingian scholars had survived and become
widespread, it might have been possible to avoid some of the
grosser forms oferror. Manuscripts would have been numerous
and there would have been safety in large numbers of carefully
copied texts. But when a period of decadence was followed by
a period of intellectual activity the naive mechanical corruptions
introduced by ignorant scribes and accepted with acquiescence
by ignorant readers became intolerable to intelligent scholars
at a later date, who sought for a meaning in what they read.
They were forced, therefore, to emend their texts, and made the
corruptions which they sought to remove more ingrained through
their interpolations, i.e. their infelicitous conjectures. A few
instances may be given to illustrate the ignorance of scribes
and the interpolations which it caused.

Monacensis Lat. 4610, a manuscript of Ovid, will serve to
show the depth of corruption reached by Germany in the twelfth
century. In it the passage from Met. vii. 759 is given as:

Carmina /Vaiades non intellecta priorum
soluerat ingeniis, et praecipitata iacebat
immemor ambagum uates obscura suarum,
Protinus Aoniis immittitur altera Thebis
pestis.

In this Vazades is a corruption for Laiades, and the reference is
to Oedipus, the son of Laius, and to the Sphinx (ates obscura).
The significance of such a text lies not so much in this isolated
error (which is common to all the manuscripts) as in the manner
in which it is accepted and explained by a certain Manogaldus,
whose notes are preserved in the manuscript :

‘Secundum Manogaldum Diana fecerat quaedam carmina
ambigua. .. quoniamque uates illius soluere non poterat homines
ea carmina non intelligentes iuerunt ad Naiades quae Naiades
soluerunt illa. Illum autem uatem quasi soluere non potuit

ert tPALIAN RENAISSANCE ΟἹ

praecipitando occiderunt. Unde Diana irata misit ad illorum
exitium quandam feram.’

In Cic. Zn Verr. Act. 11. τ. § 151 the right reading is known
from the Vatican fragment (3rd—4th century) to be ‘pupillum
Iunium praetextatum uenisse in uestrum conspectum et Sfetisse
cum patruo testimonium dicente questus est’. A Paris manu-
script (p) of the eleventh century shows that the reading had
been corrupted by that date into the meaningless words S/et esse
cum. The mediaeval scholars would seem to have contented
themselves with passing over what they could not have under-
stood, since it was left for the scribes of the fifteenth century to
make such impossible conjectures as fer esse cum and testes
secum,

The text of Seneca’s Naturales Quaestiones affords a good
example of the interpolations of mediaeval scholars from the
eleventh century to the thirteenth. None of the manuscripts in
which the treatise is preserved are older than the twelfth century.
All are descended from a common archetype, in which there was
a lacuna of about eight leaves in the fourth book. Of this
archetype a copy usually designated by the symbol ® was made
in the tenth century. Another copy (A) was made a little later,
probably in the eleventh century, when the archetype had
suffered further injury through the disappearance of the end of
Book III. Both of these copies are now lost, but their main
features can be recognized in their descendants. As might be
expected, A presented a text inferior to that preserved in 9, e.g.

NV. Ὁ... τ. τῇ Hoccerte sciam, Hoccerte sciam omnia angusta
omnia angusta esse mensus esse. Sed haec deinde. A
deum. Φ

Mensus deum was either unintelligible to the scribe who
copied A, or the letters were blurred and he made a haphazard
conjecture. Though A has disappeared it is right to infer that
this corrupt reading was in its text, since it is a reading common
to the whole group derived from A. Where the various members
of this group present divergent readings of their own it is equally

92 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE

right to infer that such divergences are alterations made later
than the date to which A is to be assigned. Some of these
alterations show that at some time in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries the text of the A-group was collated with the better
text given in the ®-group. If for this purpose a bad copy of ®
was chosen, the only result was to infect the new text with the
errors which had been developed in the course of time in the ®-
group, or to deepen the corruption by trying to emend them ;
e.g. in V. Q. vi. 5. 2 the best members of the ®-group read
‘ Magni animi fuit rerum naturae latebras dimouere nec contentum
exteriore eius aspectu introspicere’. But some members of the
group had corrupted the word contentum into crementum, others
into contemptum. This last reading has found its way into the
text of one set of manuscripts belonging to the A-group, but
the scribes who adopted the reading have attempted to give
a semblance of meaning to the passage by reading contempnendum.

If the classical learning of the thirteenth century is judged out
of the mouth of Dante there can be no complaint of the unfairness
of the test. He is the one writer who has pressed into his
service and envisaged with the sympathetic insight of genius all
the learning and literature to which he had access. Yet he knew
no Greek: and his references to Latin authors are severely
restricted in their range and are often inaccurate in detail. His
works contain references to Vergil, but only to the Eclogues and
the Aeneid, to Lucan’s Pharsalia, to Statius’ Thebats and
Achilleis (but not to the Siluae), to Ovid’s Metamorphoses and
the Remedia Amoris, to Juvenal and to Horace’s Ars Poetica.
Among prose writers he is acquainted with the De Amicitia, De
Officits, De Finibus, and De Inuentione of Cicero, with the Epistle
to Lucilius, the De Benefictis and Naturales Quaestiones of Seneca,
and with Livy, though many apparent references to Livy are
drawn from the epitomists Orosius and Florus.

His manuscript of Vergil must have belonged to the interpo-
lated class since in De Mon. 11. iii. 102 he quotes Aen. iii. 340 as
‘Quem tibi iam Troia pepertt fumante Creusa’.

In Purgatorio xxxiii. 49 he introduces the Naiades as solvers

HOt ALIAN RENAISSANCE 93

of riddles—a mistake due to the false reading in Ovid, Met. vii.
759, which has been discussed above. In Purg. xxii. 40-1 he
translates Aen. ili. 56 ‘Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, Auri
sacra fames?’ but his translation entirely inverts the meaning
by the rendering,

Per che non reggi tu, o sacra fame
Dell’ oro, l’ appetito de’ mortali Ὁ

i.e. as da Ricaldone paraphrases: ‘O fames, execrabilis et
maledicta, cur non regis mentes hominum Ὁ scilicet ut moderate
et debite expetant.’

[The main authorities are :
Bursran, C. Gesch. der classischen Philologte in Deutschland, 1883.
Norpen, E. Die antike Kunstprosa, 1909.
Rocer, M. L’enseignement des lettres classiques d' Ausone a Alcuin, Paris, 1905.
SpecuT, Εν A. Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland von den dltesten
Zeiten bis sur Mitte des xiii" Jahrhunderts, 1885.
TrauBe, L. Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, vols. i-ii, 1909-11. |

a

CHAP IER ¥

THE HISTORY OF TEXTS DURING THE PERIOD
OF THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE

Fac suspectum tibi quicquid hactenus didicisti, damnes omnia atque abjicienda
putes, nisi meliorum auctorum testimonio et uelut decreto rursus in eorum
mittaris possessionem.—Rop, AcricoLa, Lucubrationes, p. 193.

In the preceding chapter nothing has been said of the position
held by Italy in the tradition of the Latin classics, since that
position is best considered in connexion with the important
period of the Italian Renaissance.

It has sometimes been held that in Italy there was a complete
break with the ancient culture owing to the hostility of the
Church and the political unrest which followed the invasions
of the Barbarians. At first sight this view appears to be
plausible. The immediate effect of the movement in education,
begun by Cassiodorus and others, was to relegate the classical
writers to the background. The book-trade in the ancient
sense disappeared with the final victory of Christianity. The
ancient manuscripts which belonged to the period when Latin
was still a living language were allowed to perish or were used
for later writings, and, as has already been seen, only survive
because by a fortunate chance they aroused the interest of the
northern scholars such as the Irish at Bobbio. Monte Cassino
had not yet become a home of learning.

Politically also there would appear to be grounds for assuming
a complete break with the past owing to fie Lombard invasion
of 568 and the series of conflicts with the Avars, Hungarians,
Saracens, and Normans which marked the long period from the
seventh century until the eleventh. During these centuries
there is no scholarship or original literature which at first sight

THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 95

can be called distinctively Italian. Paulus Diaconus, the author
of the History of the Lombards, the most distinguished writer of
the eighth century, was himselfa Lombard. In the ninth century
there are no great names in literature. The few names of men
interested in intellectual pursuits that survive are those of
foreigners such as the Irishman Dungal who taught at Pavia
about the year "823. The same may be said of the greater
names which adorn the tenth century. Rather, Bishop of
Verona (d. 974), came from Liége; Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona
(d. 972), was a Lombard ; Pope Silvester II (Gerbert), a Frank.

Yet on a closer view these foreign names represent a move-
ment which was not wholly exotic. They imply the existence,
at any rate in Northern Italy, of a public that appreciated
scholarship. Verona especially throughout this period seems
to have remained in touch with the ancient culture. Shortly
before his death in 844 or 846 the Archdeacon Pacificus pre-
sented the College of Canons with 218 manuscripts. Various
Veronese poems which belong to the ninth and tenth centuries,
such as the sapphic verses on Bishop Adelhard and the Panegy-
ricus Berengarit, show a remarkable acquaintance with Latin
literature. These formal poems would not by themselves imply
any widespread interest in antiquity. One occasional poem,
however, belonging, as L. Traube has shown, to this period
and written at Verona, survives to show the mind of the
ordinary man. It is sufficiently steeped in the classical spirit,
and, as is now clear, in the classical spirit in its least com-
mendable quality, to have misled so great a scholar as Niebuhr,
who attributed it to a Pagan author of the fifth century a. p.!

By the eighth century the Lombards, though still affecting
to despise the Romans for their degeneracy, had assimilated
the higher culture of the subject-race. The spirit of Italian
nationality was in gradual process of evolution. And the spirit
of ancient Rome was part of the inheritance of the new race.
The Lombard kings and their successors adhered to the old

1 The poem beginning ‘O admirabile Veneris ydolum’: v. Traube, O Roma
nobilis, 1891, p. 301.

96 HISTORY OF TEXTS

German custom of educating promising youths at their court at
Pavia. Paulus, who was brought up at the court of Ratchis,
mentions that his teacher was the grammarian Flavianus.
Liutprand, before he attracted the notice of King Hugo, must
have received an education which included the works of Vergil,
Horace, Terence, Ovid, Juvenal, and Cicero. The Court itself
cannot have remained uninfluenced by the presence of such
teachers and such pupils, and it is clear that Paulus’s pupil, the
Princess Adelperga, daughter of King Desiderius, and her
husband Arichis, the Prince of Beneventum, were interested in
humane studies.

The explanation of the intellectual condition of Italy at this
period is to be found in the fact that she was the only country in
Europe which possessed an educated laity. Elsewhere education
was the monopoly of the cloister and led only to a career in the
Church. But in Italy the Church never seems to have obtained
a complete control over the education of the laity. The clergy
remained for the most part’ ignorant and fanatical, and had
never been affected by the Bonifacian reforms which had stiffened
the discipline of the Northern Churches by encouraging learning.
They retained their old feelings of mistrust for secular writings,
a mistrust that is well expressed by the insolent remark made
by Leo, a papal legate sent in 994 to King Hugo and his
son Robert, that St. Peter knew nought of Plato or Vergil or
Terence and suchlike ‘philosophic cattle’ (‘pecudes philoso-
phorum’) and yet had become the doorkeeper of Heaven
(‘Petrus non nouit talia et hostiarius caeli effectus est’).*

The result of this temper of mind on the part of the clergy
was to leave intact the old Roman system of education by lay
professors. A striking proof of this is afforded by a poem
addressed to Henry III by Wipo, the learned chaplain of
Conrad II, in which he draws a very unfavourable comparison

1 We must except the Benedictines of Monte Cassino. Here there was
a revival of learning under Abbots Theobald and Desiderius in the eleventh
century, and to this revival is due the preservation of Varro, Tacitus, Apuleius.

2 Pertz, Mon. Germ. Scriptores, iii, 687.

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 97

between the education of the laity in Germany and in Italy.
It was education, he says, that made Rome great. In Italy
every boy is sent to school. The Teutonic nations alone regard
education as useless or even disgraceful except as a preparation
for the priesthood.’

In the existence of a public of educated laymen in Italy at
this period we have an explanation of the Renaissance in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Without such a basis it
would be a brilliant episode without any relation to the past.
We have also an explanation of the lack of great names in
literature and scholarship during the mediaeval period. The
classical authors continued to be appreciated by a large number
of laymen who had neither the time nor the inclination to
become authors or scholars because their energies were ab-
sorbed in practical life. Such a public was a bad guardian
of the text of the authors whom it admired. Since they had
no scientific interest in antiquity as a whole they were content
with readable texts of those authors only whom they regarded
as profitable, and allowed much to decay that has become lost
for ever, or was recovered from other lands by the energy of
the men of the Renaissance. But they were the seed-plot of
a rich harvest.

The period of the Renaissance or the Revival of learning in
Italy may conveniently be taken to extend from the age of
Petrarch and Boccaccio to the sack of Rome by the troops of
Charles V in 1527. It is not to be supposed that the classical
literatures would have perished but for that revival. Both,

1 Tunc fac edictum per terram Teutonicorum,
Quilibet ut diues sibi natos instruat omnes
Jertterulisis = 7
Moribus his dudum uiuebat Roma decenter,
His studiis tantos potuit uincire tyrannos :
Hos seruant Itali post prima crepundia cuncti,
Et sudare scholis mandatur tota iuuentus :
Solis Teutonicis uacuum vel turpe uidetur
Ut doceant aliquem nisi clericus accipiatur.

Wiponis Tetralogus 190 sqq.,
Mon. Germ, Hist. Script. xi. p. 251.

98 HISTORY OF TEXTS

however, were at a critical period of their history. Latin
might have suffered irreparable losses from the continuance of
mediaeval neglect, while Greek literature, which, as far as can
be seen, was but little affected by the fall of Constantinople in
1453, might have been gravely impaired by that disaster had not
the study of Greek been transplanted from Byzantium to Italy
at least a century before the final victory of the Turks.

The object of the present chapter is to describe the aims and
methods of the scholars of the Renaissance in dealing with the
classical texts which they did so much to preserve, since few
texts have altogether escaped their influence.

Humanism—a term borrowed from antiquity—was an ideal
of life and not of learning. The ‘humane’ man was the educated
man free and untrammelled in thought and action by the re-
strictions which Emperor, Pope, and the Scholastic Philosophy
had imposed upon his development during the Middle Age.
The great instrument of liberation was to be found in the
ancient literatures, which were revived not entirely through
admiration of their intrinsic beauty, but because they embodied
an ideal of life which was ancient indeed but not obsolete and
irrecoverable. Italy was the only country at this period where
such a view of classical antiquity could have been other than
the pleasing fancy of a few great minds. There, however, it
was fostered not only by the aspirations of the men of the
Renaissance, but also by their practical needs. The Italians
were a highly imaginative race, devoted to the curious ideal
of ‘fame’ or glory, which largely usurped the influence of the
ordinary motives of right conduct during this period, and never
forgetting that they were the descendants and heirs of the
ancient Romans. The new studies fostered this imagination.
But they also satisfied many practical needs. Latin was still the
language of the Church, of diplomacy, and of the great professions
of Law and Medicine. It was still the ordinary medium of com-
munication between educated men in Italy, where the lingua
Toscana had not yet won its victory over the other competing
dialects. Above all, the Latin and Greek authors were still

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 99

the primary, and often the only, sources for such important
departments of practical knowledge as Law, Medicine, Mathe-
matics, Mechanics, ἄς.

The idea that the classical writers were of real practical use
and that a transformation of contemporary life was to be accom-
plished by means of them pervades the whole period of the
Renaissance, and explains the rash methods which were applied
to many of the newly discovered texts. A manuscript was of
no use to the ordinary man unless it could be read. It could
not be regarded as merely a witness to the authentic text whose
evidence must be sifted and weighed according to recognized
rules, and confronted with the evidence of all other witnesses.
It is this demand for readable texts, made at a time when the
methods of criticism were necessarily imperfect, which was one
of the chief causes of the corruptions which deface the ‘Itali’
or ‘recentiores’ or ‘deteriores’, as the manuscripts of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are usually called in a modern
apparatus criticus.

It is characteristic of the humanistic movement that it did
not influence the curriculum in schools and universities until
its force was nearly spent. The humanists were, it is true,
often employed as lecturers in the universities, but they were
nearly always birds of passage, jealous of their freedom, never at
home in the air of officialdom, and never seriously competing with
the older faculties of Law and Medicine. The early scholars
who supported the movement were partly enthusiastic amateurs,
often in high positions in the political world, and partly pro-
fessional men who sought employment wherever they could
find it as lecturers, private tutors, or secretaries. To the first
class belong men of affairs such as Coluccio di Piero de’ Salutati
(1330-1406), the friend of Petrarch and chancellor of the
Republic of Florence ; Lionardo Bruni (1369-1444), his successor
in the Chancellorship ; Churchmen such as Ambrogio Traver-

1 Cf. Aldus’s preface to Aristophanes of 1498, ‘Errant meo iudicio multum
qui se bonos philosophos medicosque euasuros hoc tempore existimant, si
expertes fuerint literarum Graecarum.’

H 2

100 HISTORY OF TEXTS

sari (1386-1459), the General of the Camaldulensian order;
Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), one of the papal secretaries ; or
private collectors like Niccold de’ Niccoli, the friend of all the
earlier discoverers, who, with the support of his powerful
patrons the Medici, collected or transcribed many of the manu-
scripts that are still in the Laurentian Library at Florence. To
the second class belong such wandering scholars as Giovanni di
Conversino of Ravenna, who was employed by Petrarch as a
copyist; his compatriot (who is often confused with him) Giovanni
Malpaghini (+1417), the teacher of Poggio and Traversari;
Gasparino da Barzizza (circ. 1370-1459), who devoted himself
especially to the study of Cicero and Quintilian ; the Byzantine
Manuel Chrysoloras (cire. 1350-1415), the first competent teacher
of Greek in Italy; Giovanni Aurispa (cire. 1370-1459), who
imported many of the manuscripts of Greek authors now in the
Laurentian Library at Florence, and many others.

The best of these scholars and amateurs were well aware
of the difficulties of the problem with which they were faced
and of their own slender resources for solving it. Manuscripts
were not easily procurable. The great enthusiasts such as
Petrarch himself and Niccoli were by no means anxious to
lend their treasures ; and Poggio’s complaints of the selfishness
of the owners of codices (‘huiusmodi homines teneri crimine
expilatae hereditatis’*) is re-echoed in the prefaces to many
of the editiones principes.2 Yet manuscripts were in great
demand, and when they could be procured it was often difficult
to find a copyist educated enough to transcribe them. The
complaints of the worthlessness of the ordinary copyist are
constant from the age of Petrarch down to the date of the
introduction of printing. Petrarch’s outburst against them is
found in his De Remed. Utriusque Fortunae t. Dial. 43, p. 2:

‘Ignauissima haec aetas culinae solicita literarum negligens
et coquos examinans non scriptores. Quisquis itaque pingere

1 Orat. funebr. Nic. Nicc., in Muratori, Rer. It. Script. xx. 169 E.
2 e.g. Οἷς. Epp. ad Brutum, Andreas, 1470, ‘Exemplaria quae ab inuidis
communi hominum odio occultantur.’

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE pe

aliquid in membranis, manuque calamum uwersare didicerit,
scriptor habebitur doctrinae omnis ignarus, expers ingenii, artis
egens.’
Salutati complains bitterly of the havoc which the scribes had
wrought with the texts even of modern writers such as Dante,
Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The following quotations from Poggio
will show that the evil was far greater in classical texts.

‘ Misisti mihi librum Senecae et Cornelium Tacitum, quod est
mihi gratum : at is est litteris Langobardicis et maiori ex parte

caducis .. . difficile erit reperire scriptorem qui hunec codicem
recte legat.’ (Tonelli, iii, Zp. xv, p. 213. Written to Niccoli

in 1427.)

In 1430 he writes:

‘Nullus mihi crede Plautum bene transcribet nisi is sit do-
ctissimus: est eis litteris quibus multi libri ex antiquis quos a
mulieribus conscriptos arbitror nulla uerborum distinctione ut
persaepe diuinandum sit.” (Ibid. 1. 339.)

‘Philippicas Ciceronis emendaui cum hoc antiquo codice qui
ita pueriliter scriptus est ita mendose ut in lis quae scripsi non
coniectura opus fuerit sed diuinatione . . . sed scis in talibus
me esse satis sagacem: non potui autem corrigere omnes.’
(Ibid. iii, Af. xviii, written in 1428.)

The apparatus of scholarship such as Grammars and Lexica
either did not exist or was not readily accessible. Hence the
path of even the best and most careful scholars was beset with
difficulties. As is natural in an age of enthusiasm and progress,
the best men tended to overestimate their strength, and the
‘divinatory power’ of criticism, as can be seen from the last
two passages quoted from Poggio, soon began to play a
disastrous part in the emendation of texts. The complaint of
Leo Aretinus, Zp. ii. 13 (Mehus) ‘Qui enim corrigere uoluit
eas plane corrupit,’ is heard on all sides.

An instructive instance of the method employed by such
correctors is to be found in the account given by Tommaso
Seneca of the edition of the poems of Tibullus which he
prepared for a certain John, a physician of Rimini. His letter
bears the date 1434, and is worth quoting in full, since Seneca
is a type of the wandering scholar, with no great ability, con-

wee “*“ISTORY OF TEXTS

vinced that he is improving the text on which he is working,
whereas in reality he is deepening its corruption.

IoANNI ARIMINENSI OPTIMO PHISICO THomMaAs SENECA SALUTEM.

Auderem fortassis augere uerbis operam hanc meam, si, ut
par fuerat, ultro ac ingenue tui gratia excepissem. Sed quoniam
et rogatus et precio sum ad eam adductus, nulle sunt in beneficio
partes mercennarii que ad laudem et gratiam proficiscantur.
Unum illud audeo dicere, quod pessimi facere mercennarii non
solent, quanta potui maxima cura studuisse ut industria superarem
opus mercennarium. MNegue enim ita ut repperi in exemplis ex-
scribere contentus fui, sed et doctos atque illustratos homines, qui
huiuscemodi poematum studiosi habentur, quo tibi quoad possem
incorruptum opus perducerem, obisse, et aliquotiens ex Prato
Florentiam iter habuisse, ubi Seraphium Urbinatem, Iohannem
Pratensem, Nicholaum Nicholum ac ceteros una alteraue de re
consultos facerem. Nam quid ipse quasi diuino quodam flatu
profecerim, id praetereo. Certe uacua que fuerant uetustate aut
scriptorum uicio deperdita meo ut aiunt Marte suppleui... .
Interea qualem hunc proinde leges, dum intelligas hoc non esse
alterum in Italia incorruptiorem. (Quoted by Baehrens,
Tibullus, 1878, p. viii.)

An instance of Seneca’s method may be seen in Tib. il. 3. 75,
where he fills up a lacuna with his own line, ‘Ah, pereant artes
et mollia rura colendi.’

This eager demand for what it was so difficult to supply threw
temptations in the way of ambitious and inferior scholars. The
long list of quattrocento forgeries’ shows what an enthusiastic,
but wholly uncritical, public was prepared to accept. A public
which could content itself with wholesale forgeries was not
likely to listen to the protests of the few scholars of discernment
who saw the harm that was produced by the manipulation of
texts of acknowledged authenticity. There were scrupulous
men such as Niccoli and Pomponius Laetus.*? Zomino of

1 Best illustrated in R. Foerster’s δὶ Zambeccari und die Briefe des Libanios,
1878; cf. also Sabbadini, Le Scoperte, p. 172.

2 M. Antonius Sabellicus (Coccio’, Ep. xi, p. 56%" ed. 1502, says of Pomponius :
‘Cum Varrone diu luctatus est: ut in integrum restitueret. In Crispo: et in
Liuio reposuit quaedam: etsi nemo religiosius timidiusque tractauit ueterum
scripta.’ Yet the discovery of the Medicean MS. of Varro de Lingua Latina
showed that his hand could be heavy on the text, e.g. v. 117 ‘ Tubae a tubis,
quos etiam nunc appellant tubicines sacrorum [id est sacri tubicines tubi uocantur),

vite Fie
-

pitied 46 ΤΩΣ αν Αὐποπ
nal ane

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 103

Pistoia maintained that an ancient manuscript should be
copied word for word; Gasparino di Barzizza_ claimed
no inspiration for his efforts to render a text readable.
‘Quaedam’, he says of his text of Cicero De Oratore, ‘ etiam
cum deficerent suppleui non ut in uersum cum textu Ciceronis
ponerentur, esset enim id uehementer temerarium, nec ab
homine docto ferendum; sed ut ea in margine posita commen-
tariorum locum tenerent.’ (Sabbadini, Studi di G. B. p. 11.)
Yet, but for the discovery of the Lodi codex by Poggio, Gas-
parino’s well-intentioned interpolations might have become an
inseparable part of the tradition of the text.

It must be remembered that before the invention of printing
the sense of responsibility was only weakly developed among
scholars. Bad or indifferent work did not at once meet the
light of criticism, and might remain latent long enough to
become authoritative. Casual suggestions thrown out by some
wandering scholar, emendations tentatively made by a bad
copyist in the margin of his book, interpolations made with the
best or worst intentions—all tend to find a permanent place
in the subsequent tradition of the text.

A valuable account of the difficulties and dangers of the
scholarship of this period is given by Salutati in his work De Fato
et Fortuna. The passage is quoted by Mehus in his edition of
Traversari’s Letters, p. ccxe, from a still unpublished manuscript
in the Laurentian Library at Florence.

Readers, he says, as well as scribes are responsible for
corruptions in Texts.

‘Late siquidem et ubique corrupta sunt omnia, et dum librarii,
per euagationem mentis et capitis leuitatem, inaduertenter omit-
tunt, dum temerarie mutant quod non intelligunt, dum plerumque
glossulas ex librorum marginibus et interliniis ueluti scribenda
recolligunt, nullum omnino textum . . . non corruptissimum re-
liquerunt.

where the words in brackets are added by Pomponius. An instance where
suspicion has been wrongly cast upon the Italians is to be seen in Cic. Pro
Caelio, where scholars have regarded the passages which are not found in P
but only in the deferiores as late interpolations. Their antiquity is now attested
by the Cluniacensis. (A. C. Clark, preface to the Oxford Text.)

104 HISTORY OF TEXTS

‘Quod quidem crimen non ipsis librariis solum, qui per
inscitiam suos libris infigunt errores, sed legentibus potius, et
illis praecipue qui non prorsus ignari, sibi se scire (quod Jatum
ignorantiae uestibulum est) corrupto iudicio persuaserunt, adscrip-
serim.

‘Hi quidem dum rebus non intellectis haerent . . . prae-

sumptuosas in libros manus iniiciunt: et aliquando litterarum,
quandoque syllabae, et aliquoties dictionum mutatione, tum
detrahentes aliquid, tum addentes, non solum alienant textus
mutantque sententias, sed omnia usquequaque peruertunt. .
O quoties uidi magistros nostri temporis non emendaticnes sed
menda suis adnotasse manibus!... Nec id nostrae aetatis solum-
modo uitium est, sed omnis quae nos praecessit post auctores
ipsos ferme posteritas, ignorantia semper et sine modo crescente,
libros quos auctoritas et fama scriptorum perpetuos fore spon-
debat uisa est ineptis et inconsideratis suis correctionibus imo
corruptionibus abolere.’

He not only diagnoses the disease, but suggests a remedy:

‘Sicut hactenus aliquando factum fuit constituantur bibliothecae
publicae in quas omnium librorum copia congeratur, praepo-
nanturque uiri peritissimi qui libros diligentissima collatione
reuideant et communem uarietatum discordiam rectae diffinitio-
nis iudicio nouerint remouere.’

He proceeds to say that he has in mind some of the ancient
recensions still recorded in manuscripts, e.g. the Calliopian
recension of Terence. Emendation, however, is a work of
difficulty.

‘Pauci quidem deprehendunt uitia paucissimique, licet cor-
ruptionemsuiderint, sunt qui nouerint relictis uestigiis illue unde
uitia coeperint remeare ... Correctionis labor ipsos grauat
et deterret errorum quos infinitos sentiunt multitudo. Si qui
forsan aliquid aliquando correxerint, remanet unico solum libro,
quidquid utilitatis adtulerunt impressum, nec late, sicuti foret
expediens, ampliatur ; idemque penitus contigit illis qui nostra
tempora praecesserunt.’

In all this confusion the Greek texts suffered equally with the
Latin. As has been described in a preceding chapter, Greek
literature had already experienced the effects of a revival of
scholarship at Byzantium under the Palaeologi. Planudes,
Moschopulus, Thomas Magister, Demetrius Triclinius, and
others had laid heavy hands on many texts and forced them to

ΨΥ τὰ INT το

en

PLATE V

J
΄

cvaliva μορίων Sys Peer Fre; γον σαν tol air, ase ὁ im — ]

Kee sc Mane ἀπρρούων phy κατ, οἱ ἀφο Che v0 MN πὸ ἐς ς

“υνυλ»» "17: παν αῦ earibwar omy i αὐτῷ ta Sap oy σὴν Lange

Sw Oren Keer suowtipo Teas “φλκωφώ ps opal rh
aod ebpers ΠΣ ΩΣ “ἡ δε σεν C5 rey Tov epee raed —
oy ΦΟΡΩ͂ —~ τ: A eer _—~

oy ον κα 24g wate ew ες Dero are on

Ϊ 4. “γῶν χογεν ᾿ κἥνον baba phd ates Mer rin Git ‘calonernsr Sipe =

ἔ Δ
Ε J

Fy any Birt stra eS, AvAnr μα οἰ εν. τ Snel τρίς 4 ort Sey 1 φλέγμα, “πῇ

[ rie 4 Ke

IE Te es

.

! RTE ey Dwr 725 tes Ahr bynan pean
phe )νονσεζ,; lar wend sss are Bs TN ΤΩΣ forser- Fav pas! -
ἘΠ: i γάμος scene Ud Pri bln In Pied eased =
τ γον, σπαρηο:- 0A wa πῇ pro αἰποϑανα:, ἐκ σνωχο,
: Pantene Trak ke wevase, aw Lethal leases’ oa
Η ᾿ aoa magoves po Awe Sr pap par Fier Sencha! - shies το pry
5nd aahigites fled pee asS ra, er org ). ΝΥΝ Ἂς it
ε΄ wager ral wanvnenyiners ἐφρεζαι acre Ios 4 αμων ἢ ’Ἐπή f
kara! ler: ἐπ γλν- pra κα »ρ»σχ δ Uno AL Ca bs * peadaavar ; Tee

: yea γ
εν ζο΄- «κοὐχ In le! φησ πον ee? color y what ings ων 6
- eov&y-

7.225 ὠνήξ γόση xpos Aompadss Ppp ere wejallos

eT Meso reais, e ee ates Aste pite¢Ioc ore ἜΣ

Rasch wos fi ΩΣ —_~_>
ἜΣ Fi mic

ΒΡ

a shew at: 45 t ~
Ly OM Iw ἤαστεω ware σρόσιν Ange μι,

a Wes, Foren. Ἰνωνζων. τρῶς eh hyn ι. [44

SA 14 Καβείρῃ. ΚΙ Papin ἡ πητ᾿

ἐμ: “τον ΕΔ ταν: PR, Wn; 4: SARE
a τ ΠΩΣ Sy eer ἐν τοὶ : ta ἐ ,»4 Ζῶ,

τ τὸ ἀν

yates ἁλιωρὸν 4 ποῦν: rel"
κε

aon ae
"δ

REGINENSIS VaTICANUS GRAEC. 173: SAEC. XV, FOL.

Galen, Kiihn xv. 77)

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 105

conform to quite arbitrary canons of vocabulary, grammar, and
metre. The same process of distortion was continued by the
Greeks who taught in Italy before and after the fall of Constan-
tinople. They were not always men of scholarly mind, and, with
a few exceptions, excited the contempt of their keen-witted pupils
in the West. Budaeus (Guillaume Budé), the French scholar,
before he found a competent teacher in Janus Lascaris, had
employed George Hermonymus of Sparta, but had made no
progress under his tuition. ‘Nisi quod legere optime et e more
_doctorum pronunciare uidebatur, expers erat omnis eruditionis :
et qui pingendis litteris Graecis uictum quaerere tantummodo
nosset.”?

Men such as Palaeocappa, Jacob Diassorinus, Andreas Dar-
marius were little better than Herinonymus.

The methods which Marcus Musurus (circ. 1470-1517) is known
to have used in editing Hesychius will show how texts were
treated by one of the best of the native Greek scholars, and it is
unlikely that the far inferior scholars at the beginning of the
century were more scrupulous. It was the custom of the early
printers to use a codex as copy for their compositors.’ Many
codices have been lost in this way. The codex of Hesychius
from which the Aldine edition of 1517 was printed is fortunately
still preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice. Villoison
in his Anecdota Gracca (ii. 256) shows how Musurus has prepared
the codex for the use ofthe printer. He has run his pen through
such compendia and ligatures as presented any difficulty and has

1 Cf. Legrand, Bibliog. Hell. i, p. cxliii.

* An illustration is given here of the treatment of codex Reginensis gr. 173 by
the editors of the ed. pr. of Galen published in 1525. The codex was used as
the copy for Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. The
initial words of proper names have been indicated in capital letters in the
margin ; the Lemmata (or text of Hippocrates) upon which Galen is commenting
have been written in full in the margin, since the writer of the codex had only
given the beginning and ending: spellings are altered in the text: and the
printer’s signature of sheet 13 Aa is written in the margin and marked by
a bracket in the text. This illustration is reproduced (by permission) from
J. Mehwaldt’s article in Sitsungsberichte der kgl. Preuss. Akad., phil.-hist. Klasse,
vol, xxxix, 1912.

106 HISTORY OF TEXTS

re-written them in full in the margin. He has carefully arranged
the syllables which were wrongly united or divided in the origi-
nal and has silently introduced a multitude of corrections, addi-
tions, omissions, and transpositions. His employer Aldus speaks
with pride in the preface of the results achieved. ‘Quantum per
occupationes licuit, diligenter recognouit, fecitque, licet cursim,
πατρὸς dpe. Villoison with more truth speaks of ‘l’original
que Musurus a si étrangement dénaturé’. (Legrand, 8. ἢ. i,
p. cxvii.) A good instance of the less fortunate corrections which
he has made can be seen S.V. ἄελλα' συστροφὴ ἀνέμου καὶ κονιορτὸς
ἀπὸ ἀεινοσετὶ πνεῖν (cod.) ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ νοσερόν τι πνεῖν (Musurus). The
correct reading is ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεῖν ὃ ἐστὶ πνεῖν.

On the whole, the Greeks were too incompetent and the
Italians too impatient for the work which they attempted. Yet it
is well to remember that many scholars (e.g. Michael Apostolios,
Valla, Politian, Marullus) reached a high level of excellence, in
spite of the difficulties by which they were hampered.’

Even the worst scholars shot so many arrows that some were

1 T quote two of Politian’s notes at length as showing the soundness of his
method.

Politian, Lib. Miscell. p. 278, ed. Bas., cap. Ixi:

‘Verba... uitiose posita in Plinianis his codicibus reperiuntur hoc modo;
Vinum potaturus rex, memento te bibere sanguinem terrae. Sicuti uenenum est
homuni cicuta, ita et uinum.

‘Leuis profecto sententia, nimisque uiolenta et coacta, wimum esse homini
uenenum sicuti cicutam. Sed enim in uetustissimo illo Medicae familiae Pliniano
codice, sic inuenias; Cicuta homini uenenum est, cicutae uinum, Nam ut
hominem cicuta, sic cicutae uirus meri potus extinguit. Ex eoque persuadere
Alexandro nititur Androcides, ut tanquam re potentissima parcius utatur uino,
quod ueneni uenenum fit.’

Ib. c. xx. Suet. Mero xlv. ‘ Vitiati deprehenduntur Suetoniani codices in
Nerone. Nam sic utique in omnibus: Alferius collo et scopa deligata, simulque
titulus: Ego quid potui? sed tu culleam meruisti. Nam neque scopa latine
dicitur numero singulari: et si maxime dicatur, nihil tamen commercii scopis et
culleo. Sed enim in uetustis exemplaribus uestigium, ut arbitror, extat inco-
lumis, ueraeque lectionis, hoc modo: Alterius collo ascopa deligata, Quare
si literam penultimam fer scripseris, Ascopera fiet, quod et esse rectissimum
puto: siquidem est Ascopera saculus pelliceus.... Haec ergo fuit ascopera
Neronianae statuae collo deligata, cullei symbolum, quoniam matricida.’

There is an excellent discussion of the name Vergilius in cap. Ixxvii,
pp. 286-7.

IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 107

certain to find the mark. Unless this is remembered it is very
easy to form a wrong estimate of the manuscripts which have
survived from this period. The value of a codex of the fifteenth
or sixteenth centuries cannot always be estimated by the good
readings which it contains. Such good readings, it is true, may
be inherited from a good and early tradition which has been
defaced by later corruptions, but it is essential before making
this assumption to consider whether they are not merely the
fortunate conjectures of some scholar of the Renaissance. In
Plaut. Pseud. 1063 the Palatine family of manuscripts read:
‘Viso quirerum (ov quiserum) meus Ulixes egerit.’. The editio
princeps (Z) has the right reading, ‘Viso quid rerum &c.’,
which is also preserved in the Ambrosian palimpsest. But it
would be vain to suppose that Z had inherited this good reading
rom a tradition similar to that preserved in the Ambrosian. It
is merely a fortunate conjecture of some scholar of the Re-
aissance. An unfortunate conjecture of similar origin can be
een in the reading of the Leipzig codex (F), ‘ Viso quid seruus
eus Ulixes egerit.’

In some authors (e.g. Aristotle’s Poetics) it is very difficult to
fform a correct estimate of the character of the manuscripts
elonging to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The tendency
f modern criticism, however, is to distrust them, and not to
ccept their good readings as credentials for the other possible
eadings which they offer.

{The main authorities are :

IESEBRECHT, W. De litterarum studis apud Italos primis medit aevi saeculis.
Berlin, 1845. Tr. into Italian by C. Pascal, Florence, 1895.

oLnac, P. pe. La bibliotheque de Fulvio Orsini. 1887.

ABBADINI. Le scoperte det codici latini e greci ne’ secoli xiv ὁ xv. 1905.

ANDys, J. E. Harvard lectures on the Revival of learning. 1905.

oct, G. Die Wriederbelebung des klassischen Alterthums. Third edition by

M, Lehnerdt, 1893. |

CHAPTER UVI

RECENSION

In the preceding chapters an attempt has been made to sum-
marize the history of the large body of documents by means of }
which classical texts have been preserved till the invention of ἢ
printing. Inthe present chapter we shall consider the Criticism
of documents, i.e. the methods by which the evidence which
they contain is to be interpreted and controlled so as to enable
the authentic text to be recovered as far as possible.

| Textual Criticism, as it is now understood, is divided into two”
processes: (1) Recension, (2) Emendation. By Recension ist
meant the selection of the most trustworthy documentary evi- ἢ
dence as a basis on which to found the text. Such a selection.
of course, is only possible after a critical examination of all the }
evidence that is available. Emendation is the attempt to elim- |
inate the residuum of error which even the best documents will -
be found to contain. It is an attempt to transcend the tradition.
It is, therefore, a deliberate overruling of the written evidence, and
its results (unless confirmed by the discovery of fresh documen-
tary evidence) are never certain, but can only attain to probability.
An adequate method of Recension has only been rendered
possible by the growth of Palaeography, i. e. the scientific study
of ancient documents—the hands in which they are written, the
age to which they belong, and generally speaking the purposes, —
methods, and circumstances which influenced the men who-
produced them. ;
The scientific criticism of documents of any kind is developed
late in the history of Western Europe. Throughout the Middle
Age the cry for accuracy and authenticity goes up, but with
little result. Important interests hung upon such documents as_
charters ; and churches, monasteries, and towns forged them in

RECENSION 109

large numbers in their anxiety to confirm privileges which they
possessed by right or usurpation." In the absence of any
knowledge of palaeography such documents might be suspected,
but there was no means of testing them, and the helplessness of
the times is seen in the various devices, such as the oath or
duel, which were sometimes employed in default of proper
proofs of trustworthiness.* A more effective safeguard was the
enrolment of documents upon registers, a practice inherited
from Greece and Rome. But such registers were always liable
to be destroyed in time of war or civil disturbance.

If there was difficulty in estimating the character of so short
a document as a charter, there was a far greater difficulty in
securing purity of text in the larger ecclesiastical documents
that were in constant use. It was recognized that age afforded
a presumption of accuracy: but if it was impossible to refer to
an old copy there was no means of getting beyond the corrup-
tions which in the course of time had defaced the original text.
A good example of such corruption is to be seen in the famous
and widespread Rule of St. Benedict. This was composed by
the saint himself at Monte Cassino, circ. 550 A.D., and written
in the vernacular Latin of the period. During the two succeed-
ing centuries the text assumed a different form, owing to the
accidental corruptions introduced by copyists, and the inten-
tional alterations made by monks, who were either ashamed of
the vernacular style of their founder, or were unable to under-
stand it. In consequence of the uncertainty which began to sur-
round the text of the Rule, Charlemagne, in 787, on learning that
there was a codex at Monte Cassino which was reputed to be
in the handwriting of St. Benedict himself, had a copy made so

as to provide a standard text for the monasteries of the Benedic-

tine order throughout his dominions. About the year 816 two
monks named Grimwald and Tatto made a similar copy, which

| they sent to their master Reginbert at Reichenau in Bavaria.

But they placed the readings of the modern and interpolated

1 Cf. Giry, Manuel de Diplomatique, pp. 877 546.
2 Cf. Wattenbach, Schrifiwesen, p. 7.

IIo RECENSION

version in the margin of their copy ‘ desiderantes utrumque uos
et secundum traditionem pii patris etiam modernam habere.
Eligite uobis quod desiderabili placuerit animo.’ Up to 800 the
interpolated version rules in France, Germany, and England.
In the next century the pure text is current in Germany.
But in a short time there is a conflict between the two versions
which ‘ends in a disgraceful peace ’.’ It is a striking illustration
of the helplessness of the Middle Age in textual criticism when
an important community such as the Benedictines finds a diffi-
culty in preserving the text of a work which, as Traube says,
‘has a better attested tradition than the text of any ancient book
except Jerome’s version of the Bible and the Collection of the
Canon law.’?

The impulse towards a critical treatment of documents came
from the attacks made upon a number of forgeries which had
been accepted by the mediaeval Church. These are known as
the False Decretals, a series of papal decrees and other docu-
ments which were put forth in the West Frankish kingdom in
the ninth century under the mask of a certain Isidorus Mercator,
in order to strengthen the power of bishops. Their authenticity |
was successfully impugned by Nicolaus Cusanus (d. 1464). With —
them was included the so-called Constantine Donation, a forgery ©
of the eighth century which purported to be a conveyance by
the Emperor Constantine, on his conversion, of the sovereignty —
over Rome and all Italy to Pope Silvester and his successors. —
This was shown to be spurious by Lorenzo Valla (d. 1457).

This spirit of criticism, which was the fruit of the Renaissance |
of learning in Italy, had far-reaching developments during the
next century. Its first effect was seen in the all-important
domain of Theology in the growth of Protestantism. Behind
Luther (1483-1546) and the other leaders of the Reformation ~
were critical students of ecclesiastical history such as Matthias —
Flacius (1520-1575). He and his successors, the Magdeburg

1 Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti, 1898, and 1910, criticized by —

Butler, Downside Review, 1899, and Journ. of Theol. Studies, 1902, p. 458.
2 ΤΌ. p. 604.

RECENSION FEE

Centuriators, analysed the mass of legends and falsifications
which had overgrown the history of the mediaeval Church.
Among the laity the counterpart of this movement is found in
the works of Montaigne (1533-1592), who is no sceptic, but the
enemy of intellectual fanaticism in every form since he requires
belief to be tested by reason and experience. The reaction
which followed had one good result. It forced the opponents of
the new spirit to examine their documents, and rendered access-
ible a mass of material which had hitherto lain hidden in the
archives of individuals or corporations. Its influence upon
ecclesiastical texts is seen in the inauguration in 1643 of the
edition of the Acta Sanctorum by the Jesuit scholar, John
Bolland (1596-1655) of Antwerp. After his death the pendulum
swung back, and the undertaking, which had been conceived in
a conservative spirit, assumed a very different form in the hands
of his successors, Daniel Papebroch and Gottfried Henschen.
In 1675 Papebroch, by his preface to the new volume of Acta,
aroused the hostility of two powerful orders—of the Carmelites,
by rejecting the legend that the prophet Elijah had founded
their order on Mount Carmel; and of the Benedictines, by
denying the authenticity of the Merovingian documents, which
were the chief credentials for many of the Benedictine monas-
teries in France.

The replies of the two orders were curiously different. The
Carmelites invoked the Spanish inquisition, which suppressed
the offending work in 1695. The Benedictines founded the
science of Palaeography.

The Benedictine order had been revived in France in 1618
under the new title of the Congrégation de Saint-Maur, through
the efforts of Dom Bénard. During the next fifty years its
members had recovered their ancient reputation for learning.
At the time of Papebroch’s attack their foremost scholar was
Jean Mabillon (1632-1707), of the monastery of Saint-Germain-
des-Prés, near Paris. Mabillon soon found that he could effect
nothing without a more extensive acquaintance with documents
than could be acquired within the walls of his own monastery,

112 RECENSION

and made a journey in 1680 through Lorraine in order to
complete the material for his work De Re Diplomatica, which
was published in 1681. As its title shows, it deals mainly with
the palaeography of official documents or ‘diplomata’, and only
cites the evidence of manuscripts by way of illustration. Pape-
broch was generous enough to recognize the merits of his
opponent’s work, which can justly be said to have laid the
foundations upon which textual criticism has since been built.

It was not long before it was recognized that the problems
presented by charters and manuscripts were widely different.
In dealing with charters the critic is for the most part working
upon documents which claim to be originals or carefully certifi-
cated copies of originals. He has therefore to decide whether
the handwriting (among other indications) justifies their claim to
belong to a certain age. But a manuscript is at the best but
a distant descendant from the text originally written by the
author and must frequently present the author’s words in a
gravely mutilated form.

It was Mabillon’s work which inspired the kindred studies of ©
Bernard de Montfaucon, also a Benedictine from St. Maur,
whose great work entitled Palaeographia Graeca appeared in
1708.

But though the new science of palaeography was founded it was

1 Other Jesuit scholars, from their dislike of the Benedictines, who at this
period were suspected of leaning towards Jansenism, continued to maintain
the position which Papebroch had prudently surrendered. Among these were
Barthélemy Germon and Jean Hardouin (1646-1729). Hardouin (who was no
mean scholar, as can be seen from his Delphin edition of Pliny’s Natural
History) maintained in 1693 the extreme paradox that, with the exception
of Cicero, Pliny the Elder, and parts of Vergil and Horace, all the surviving
classical writers were forgeries dating only from the Renaissance. Such
extravagant scepticism refuted itself. Germon, a few years later, upheld the

more possible thesis that all codices had been corrupted, i.e, interpolated at
various periods. The controversies thus aroused were valuable in so far as

they attracted the attention of scholars towards manuscripts rather than |

charters. Germon’s attack upon Coustant, the Benedictine editor of Hilarius de
Trinitate, in which he accused his opponent of printing a reading which (as he
maintained) rested on an alteration made by some early Adoptianist heretic,
led to a protracted discussion which did much to fix the date of the half-uncial
hand. (Traube, Vorlesungen, i. 34.)

RECENSION 113

long before its full significance was understood.! The true
classification of handwritings, their descent from earlier hands,
their affinities with one another, have all had to be investigated
by a long line of researchers before it has been possible to
assign a reasonably accurate date to an undated manuscript.
Until it was possible to classify manuscripts according to age no
really scientific basis could be found for criticism. Such a
classification was only rendered possible in Latin manuscripts
by the discoveries of Maffei (see note below) in the eighteenth
century, and the effect of his discoveries was not fully felt till
the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The full significance of modern textual criticism will only be
appreciated if we take a brief survey of the empirical methods
employed by some of the earlier scholars.

The difficulties which confronted classical scholarship after it
had emerged from the wild enthusiasms of the Renaissance can
all be referred to the dearth of good manuscripts. Unless he
was prepared to face the danger and expense of travel, the
ordinary man was confined to the few libraries within reach of
his native town. Scholars who could travel outside their own
country in attendance on some rich patron were unusually
fortunate. Part of the success of Dionysius Lambinus, the
great French scholar (1520-1572), was due to the experience

1 In Latin it owes its development to the labour of a number of subsequent
scholars. Scipione Maffei (1675-1755), of Verona, discovered a mass of ancient
| Latin manuscripts in the Chapter Library at Verona in 1713. With the aid

of these he was able to correct Mabillon’s theory of ‘ National’ hands, and to
put forward the now accepted view that all the Western systems of writing
are descended from the different forms (Majuscule, Minuscule, Cursive) of the
Roman hand alone. A further impetus to research was given by the discovery
in 1717 by von Hutten and Eckhardt of a large number of early manuscripts in
_ the Cathedral at Wiirzburg, where they had been hidden since the Swedish
invasion of 1631. In 1747 J. L. Walther published his Lexicon Diplomaticum,
i.e. a dictionary of contractions. Between 1750 and 1765 Tassin and Toustain,
two Benedictines, published anonymously their Traite de Diplomatique, a
masterly survey of all previous materials, which for the first time proved the
separate existence of the capital, uncial, and half-uncial hands. Greek palaeo-
graphy made little progress between the time of Montfaucon and F. J. Bast,

whose best-known work is his Commentatio Palaeographica appended to
Schaefer’s edition of Gregorius Corinthius, Leipzig, 1811.

473 I

114 RECENSION

which he gained in the libraries of Venice and Rome under the
protection of Cardinal Tournon. But even when a library was
accessible it was often difficult to know what it contained, since
there were no printed catalogues, and often no catalogues at all.
A stranger was frequently denied access to material which he
had reason to believe was in existence through the jealousy or
indifference of custodians, as Mabillon and Montfaucon found
when they inquired for the manuscripts which were known to
have belonged to the Cathedral at Verona and as Isaac Vossius
found in Rome. There was every temptation therefore for a
scholar to abandon all laborious research for fresh material,
and to content himself with what lay ready to his hand.

An early group of scholars who refused to follow these easy
paths were the friends of Erasmus, who gathered round him during
his residence in Basel between 1521 and 1529 and transmitted
to Switzerland and Northern Germany the humanism of the
Italian Renaissance. Erasmus had shown his powers as a
critic of texts by his work upon the New Testament (though here
his work was marred by haste), on St. Jerome, where he endea-
voured to discriminate methodically between the genuine and the ©
spurious, and by editions of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and many other
classical writers. Among his friends were Beatus Rhenanus, —
the editor of the editio princeps of Velleius (1520), which is based }
upon the lost Murbacensis; Simon Grynaeus (1493-1541), the —

discoverer of the Laureacensis of Livy 41-45; Johannes Sich- i

ardus (1499-1552) and Bonifatius Amerbach (1495-1562), two
jurists in an age when jurists were also scholars. To the
same group belonged Sigismundus Gelenius (1497-1554), who
edited Ammianus and Livy, the first from the lost Hersfeld-
ensis, and the second, in partnership with Rhenanus, from the
Spirensis and the Moguntinus.

I quote an extract from Gelenius’s preface to Livy to show the
spirit in which these men approached their task:

‘Primum uir acerrimi ingenii Rhenanus, diligenti habita per
collegia simul et coenobia conquisitione, genuinum exemplar 4
omnium qui extant Liuii librorum, excepta dimidia decade tertia, —

RECENSION ΤῈΣ

5101 comparauit: eo consilio, ut praelucente antiqua lectione,
facilius mendarum tenebras discuteret. Quis enim non uideat,
ubi uetera archetypa tam inter se consentiunt, quam a uulgatis
editionibus dissonant, multo quum expeditius tum certius sin-
ceram lectionem restitui posse ?’

Speaking of his own work, he continues :

‘Ne quis igitur mihi hic protinus reclamet, tolli receptam
lectionem: sed prius consideret, quid sublatum, quidue reposi-
tum. Equidem eam lectionem pro recepta habendam censeo,
quae ante annos plus mille recepta est, quam quae proximis
annis per typographorum oscitantiam primum irrepsit, mox
numerosa uoluminum propagine latius in dies inualuit, doctis
interim uel dissimulantibus uel aliud agentibus.’?

In the second half of the sixteenth century the main current
of classical learning flows through France and the Netherlands.
In the first half the French genius had wasted itself upon a
rather barren admiration for Cicero, an importation from Italy
which had been accepted by Dolet and others. Erasmus had
done his best to kill this pedantic trifling in his dialogue
‘Ciceronianus’, published in 1528. Scaliger’s father had crossed
swords with him intemperately and unsuccessfully. The next
generation addressed themselves to the serious business of
scholarship. ‘Their success was in part due to the political con-
dition of France at this time. The wars of religion set free many
of the treasures which had been lying unused in the French
monasteries for centuries. Houses such as Fleury were cap-
tured and pillaged by the Huguenots. Many of the valuable
codices which they contained perished, but many more were
sold by the despoilers and found their way into the great private
collections which were formed at this time by scholars, jurists,
theologians, and men of affairs—in short, by every cultivated
man who could afford the expense. Among these may be men-
tioned Cujacius (1522-1590), the greatest of French jurists;
Pierre Daniel (1530-1603) of Orléans, a scholar as well as
a lawyer, who was the first to publish the complete version of

1 Annotationes B. Rhenani et Sig. Gelenii in extantes T. Liuit libros, Lugduni,
1537]. Preface, pp. 8, 9.

ν᾿

116 RECENSION

Servius’s commentary on Vergil, and who purchased a great
part of the library of S. Benoit-sur-Loire at Fleury from the
soldiers who had plundered it in 1562; Iacobus Bongarsius,
jurist and diplomat (1554-1612), editor of Justin; Petrus
Pithoeus (1539-1596), a pupil of Cujacius, and author of an
edition of Juvenal and Persius in 1585 based upon his own
codex, in which he made the first advance in the study of these
authors. ‘These were all rich men who could afford to possess
manuscripts. In the Netherlands we get poorer men filled
with an equal enthusiasm for classical antiquity, who had to
content themselves with exploring and registering the material
that was in the possession of others, in their own country or
abroad. ‘To these belonged Ludovicus Carrio (1547-1595), who
travelled through Belgium and Holland making catalogues o
the chief libraries; and Franciscus Modius (1556-1597), a veri-
table Ulysses among scholars, who accompanied Carrio on many
of his journeys and pushed his own research further afield i
Germany. It is men such as these, none of them scholars o
the first rank, who stand behind the great protagonists of learn
ing—a Scaliger or a Lipsius. A few extracts from Modius’s |
works may be given here since they show that the prope
balance between manuscript authority and conjecture is not ἢ
a discovery of modern times. In his Vegetius, published i
1580, he says:

‘Satis habeat lector, nihil temere aut sine librorum auctoritate
in hac nostra editione tentari aut loco suo moueri.’ (p. 28.)

And again in the same book :

‘Sine quibus (sc. codicibus) nugas agat et temere adeo faciat)].
meo quidem iudicio, qui auctorem aliquem recensendum in manus
sumat. Enim periculosa est semper in alieno opere nimia dili
gentia: tantoque periculosior quanto is, qui in tali negotio uersa
tur, eruditione et ingenio excellit aut certe excellere postulat.
(Letter of Dedication to the Vegetius.)

Conjecture can easily become a danger :

‘Neque enim eorum industriam laudare potui, qui, his praesi
diis (sc. codicum) destituti, ad nudas coniecturas dilabuntur et
sola ingenii fiducia quosuis auctores emendare aggrediuntur.
(Preface to Poems of Vegius, 1579.)

RECENSION ἘΤῚ

Yet the*same century which produced men of the stamp of
Modius saw a doubtful service rendered to scholarship by
H. Stephanus (1528-1598), when he constructed what long
remained the vulgate texts of many of the classics. His work,
like that of the Renaissance editors, was a response to a wide-
spread demand for readable texts. It was, however, perverse
and uncritical, as was immediately seen by good scholars such as
Scaliger.’

In the first half of the seventeenth century in France scholar-
ship was diverted to patristic studies under the influence of the
Jesuits, who championed the counter-reformation. They tended
to treat Greek as the language of heresy, and allowed the study
of it to wither and almost to disappear. In Germany the
development promised by the groups of scholars and literati
who gathered in such centres as Cologne (e.g. Melchior Hit-
torpius 1525-1584, Ianus Gulielmius 1555-1584, Iohannes Me-
tellus 1520-1597) and Heidelberg (F. Sylburg 1536-1596, and
others) was arrested by the thirty years’ war (1618-1648). In
the Netherlands alone scholarship remained to all appearance
in a state of overwhelming prosperity, which continued down to
the second half of the eighteenth century. In many depart-
ments of the study of antiquity, such as history, law, and
archaeology, the achievements of the Dutch scholars were
undeniably great, but if we consider what progress they made
towards founding a methodical criticism of texts the answer
must be that their work is on the whole disappointing. They
expended their labour mainly upon Latin literature, and in Latin
they preferred the poets to the prose-writers. On its best side
their criticism always shows immense erudition, and often tact,
taste, and ingenuity. On its worst it is irrelevant, diffuse, and
too prone to rash conjecture. They always seem to be appealing
to manuscripts in order to tinker the vulgate text, instead of
casting aside the vulgate and starting afresh from the most
ancient and authoritative sources, as even the humbler scholars

1 Who describes him as a man ‘qui φιλαυτίᾳ laborans temere quidquid displicet
immutat et corrumpit’. Prima Scaligerana s.v. Erotianus.

118 RECENSION

of the previous century had endeavoured to do. Hence though
they cannot be said to have neglected manuscript authority, yet
they make no attempt to gain a comprehensive view of the
tradition or to arrange the available manuscripts in groups or
to quote them systematically. Havercamp as late as 1725, with
the two Vossiani of Lucretius at his elbow, failed to see their
real importance or even to report them accurately. Hence the
texts produced by this school are nearly always eclectic and
their criticism desultory and subjective. We must not, of course,
forget the temptations and difficulties which stood in their way.
Fine minds like Nicolaus Heinsius (1620-1681) were drawn off
into diplomacy and political affairs. But great and small alike
were flattered by the demands of a large and cultivated public,

which, as usual, got what it demanded and deserved. Accordingly ©

texts, commentaries, and handbooks poured from the Dutch
presses in an unceasing flood, till in the Variorum editions of
men like the younger Burman (1714-1778) the original current |
of scholarship lost all freshness, depth, and force. The wander-
ing enthusiast like Modius, who had done so much for scholarship
in the sixteenth century, was replaced by men holding comfortable
academic positions, sure of their public, and dead to all enter-
prise.' At the same time we must set their difficulties against
their shortcomings. The lack of material or its inaccessibility
was still a hindrance to progress. Public libraries, which alone
have rendered true advance possible, were few and far apart.
Private collectors were not always generous to unknown
scholars: their collections were constantly passing into other
hands, so that it was very difficult often to trace a manuscript
which was known to be in existence; and private ownership
increased the risk of loss and destruction.2. It must be remem-

1 Their empirical methods were far more successful in dealing with Latin
poetry than in dealing with prose. In poetry the standards of language and
metre were fixed once and for all by the great Augustan poets, such as Vergil
or Ovid, and their authority remained paramount with all succeeding poets.
But Cicero and Livy exercised no such influence over the later prose-writers.
See Lucian Miiller, Gesch, der ki, Philologte in den Niederlanden, 1869, p. 52.

2 Gassendi in his life of Peiresc, 1655, p. 137, remarks: ‘Expetebat uero ut

RECENSION 119

bered also that travel was still difficult and dangerous. In the
second half of the seventeenth century, after the Peace of Miinster
in 1648, Holland enjoyed a period of internal peace and
exceptional prosperity. But the rest of Europe, until the peace
of Utrecht in 1713, was rent by disastrous wars, which rendered
all intercommunication precarious.

The best expression of the highest aims of the scholarship of
the seventeenth century is perhaps to be found in the work
of J. F. Gronovius (1611-1671), a native of Hamburg, who
completed his education in Holland and succeeded Daniel
Heinsius as professor in Leyden in 1659. He travelled widely
in Italy, France, and England in order to examine manuscripts,
and devoted his energies mainly to the elucidation of Latin prose
writers. I quote a few passages from his works, which show
that his outlook was in advance of contemporary scholarship.
It must be remembered, however, that he expresses an ideal
which no man at the time was capable of realizing single-handed.

‘Quare etsi non laudem audaces coniecturas, quibus nonnulli
ueterem scripturam nimis transformauerunt, et membranis
haerere tutissimum sit; tamen si quid illae huiusmodi asperi et
scabri et senticosi exhibeant, id non tam malo, quia Minucii
[he is speaking of the text of Minucius Felix] esse certum
habeam, quam quia ex eo, quod auctoris fuerit, facilius elici posse
non desperem. Non sunt enim codices antiqui sine mendis,
etiam prodigiosis: et praeclare nobiscum agitur, cum signa ad
salutem et ueram auctoris manum satis plana sunt ac certa:
reliquum mens diuina plurimumque doctrinae studium et per-
cognita scriptoris indoles ac natura praestabunt.’ (I. F. Gronouii
Obseruatorum Monobibl. 1651, p. 72.)

‘Quod si caecum illud atque agreste literarum humanitatisque
fastidium et noscendae antiquitatis barbara pigritia non inter-
cessisset ; tamen, quia calamis exemplaria exsignabantur, et a
fide captuque librariorum pendebant, non utique legis Corneliae
seueritatem aut, ut a iuratis opus exigeretur, metuentium;
mirandum non erat, ut tabulae pictae quo saepius transferuntur,
eo minus ueritati respondent, sic et ista paullatim minus exstitisse
minusque sincera. Quid euenisse cogitabimus, dum inter tot sae-

rari et bonae notae MSS. nisi quamprimum ederentur, asseruarentur saltem
in publicis potius quam in priuatis bibliothecis ; quod ea ratione longe minus
malo fato forent obnoxii.’

120 RECENSION

cula aut abiecta quosuis (ut absint aliae noxae) omnia consumentis
aeui casus experiuntur, aut tam infelicibus manibus atteruntur ?
Ecce aliud ex naufragio naufragium cum iam totum uideretur cae-
lum nescioquid clarius relucere. Post longam intercapedinem
rursus tandem ueterum facta conquisitio et necessitas agnita : in-
uentum formis describere libros [1.6. printing was discovere@] et
una opera prodere quantum liberet librorum: ita monasteriorum
obsidione liberari, et passim salubri etiam annona, ne pretia le-
gendi cupidos deterrerent, in manus uenire: cum interim qui
officinis praeessent, ut tunc erat, praeter caeteros docti uisi, non
in mendas tantum operarum, sed in ipsorum auctorum ingenium
stylum uertere ; ut quidque eruditius aut a uulgo remotum occur-
risset, expungere ; aliud usu plebeio tritum subicere ; leues et una
uel adiecta uel dempta uel correcta litera mutandos errores pro in-
gentibus lacunis de suo sarcire ; nihil quod non adsequerentur, ita
ut inuenerant, relictum pati. Actum erat de pulcherrimis reliquiis,
et seruatae uidebantur, ut conseruandi specie tristius perirent, nisi
homines in coniecturis sagaces et in discernendo acuti, quas earum
quisque multum uersando et crebrius euoluendo et intentissima
cura cum uniuersas tum per partes considerando arcanius intro-
spexerant, ad annosissimas, quae possent haberi, membranas reuo-
cassent, et quid ratio atque analogia sermonis, quid cuiusque
auctoris genius et aetas, quid alii eandem materiam uel occupatam
uel repetitam tractantes suaderent aut adspernarentur, quo sen-
tentia, quo literarum uetustissimae cuiusque manus ductus auri-
garentur ; haec aliaque eodem facientia bene meditati uindicanda
et explananda, per quae ipsi profecissent melioremque animum
haberent, iusta pietate suscepissent.’ (Obseruationum liber nouus,
1652, Preface, p. 4 seq.)

The last great name before classical scholarship was revolu-
tionized by F. A. Wolf and his pupils is undoubtedly that of
Bentley (1662-1742). It cannot be doubted that almost all the
principles of textual criticism which have since been recognized
were really latent in his mind, and would have been developed
by him if he had had adequate materials to work upon. As
H. A. J. Munro says (Lucretius, vol. i, p. 17): ‘Had Bentley
in 1689 succeeded in his efforts to obtain for the Bodleian Isaac
Vossius’ famous library, he might have anticipated what Lach-
mann did by a century and a half.’ If we consider his Horace
by itself we must admit that he has often treated the text
capriciously and emended the tradition where it was sound.
But, even here, it should be noticed that his remark on Car. iii. 27.

RECENSION T21

15, ‘Nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt,’
which is so often quoted as typical of his arrogant methods, is
qualified by the context, which is often omitted, ‘praesertim acce-
dente Vaticani ueteris suffragio.’ His real view of the use of
manuscripts, and his anxiety to estimate their value justly, is
better expressed in his letter to G. Richter about a manuscript of
Manilius.

‘Tllud quoque et heic et in aliis te admonuisse non erit inutile:
multa scil. in uetustis MStis sub tempore renascentium litterarum
iam ab annis circiter trecentis interpolata fuisse, et nouas lectio-
nes intrudi solitas, prioribus erasis. Eas, si quae in uestro
codice fuerint, ut sine dubio sunt, facile erit tibi dignoscere uel
a colore atramenti, uel a ductu litterarum, uel a uestigiis rasurae
quae nunquam euanescit. IIlud igitur diligenter curabis, ut
singula loca indices, quae a manu secunda et interpolatrice sint
mutata : et, si fieri poterit, deprehendas, quid olim a prima manu
scriptum fuerit, sub rasura illa nunc latitans.’ (Correspondence
of Rich, Bentley, ed. Wordsworth, p. 367.)

If, however, he had been able to complete his magnificent and
well-considered scheme for an edition of the New Testament,
where, as he himself admits, ‘there is no place for conjectures
or emendations,’ and where all his alterations were to be guided
by an appeal to ancient authorities, he could hardly have failed
to have lighted upon a more scientific method of criticism. But
as it was his project was premature, and failed because the mass
of material that required to be considered was not sufficiently
digested."

1 It might have been expected that the first advances in methodical criticism
of manuscripts would have come from the study of the New Testament, since
the material for the solution of the problem of the text there has always been
so ample. The early scholars, however, were hampered by their theological
prepossessions, e.g. Erasmus thought that age in a codex laid it open to the
suspicion of having been altered so as to bring its text into accord with the
Vulgate. The first advance is made by Richard Simon (1638-1712), a French
Oratorian, whose Histoire critique du Texte du N. T. (1689), beside providing
an historical introduction to the text, also attempts an estimate of the manuscripts
known to him. Little progress was made for some time after this work, partly
owing to the natural timidity of pious editors, partly owing to the vastness and
complexity of the problem, and still more owing to the substantial excellence
of even the worst tradition of the New Testament, where manuscripts which

122 RECENSION

The new and true method of Recension is first formulated by
F. A. Wolf, perhaps the greatest and certainly the most stimu-
lating scholar of the second half of the eighteenth century (1759-
1824). The opening chapter of his Prolegomena to Homer,
published in 1795, has laid down the lines followed by Immanuel
Bekker and by Karl Lachmann, who may be taken as repre-
senting two subsequent stages in the development of modern
textual criticism.

Wolf's doctrine, in brief, is that αὐ the trustworthy witnesses
to a text must be heard and heard continuously before a verdict
is given. It is, he says, a ‘recensio’ and not a mere ‘recognitio’
that is required. Too often editors found their text on a number
of manuscripts that they have arbitrarily selected, or even on
one manuscript; or they pause only at the passages where the
sense is obscure or the reading obviously corrupt. Then, and
not till then:

‘Ad uarias lectiones aut ad uetus exemplar confugiunt, surda
plerumque oracula, nisi constanter consulentibus. ... Iusta
autem recensio bonorum instrumentorum omnium stipata prae-
sidio, ubique ueram manum scriptoris rimatur ; scripturae cuius-
que, non modo suspectae, testes ordine interrogat, et quam
omnes annuunt, non nisi grauissimis de causis loco mouet ; alia,
per se scriptore dignissima, et ad ueritatem seu elegantiam
sententiae optima, non nisi suffragatione testium recipit; haud
raro adeo, cogentibus illis, pro uenustis infert minus uenusta ;

emplastris solutis ulcera nudat ; denique non monstrata solum,
ut mali medici, sed et latentia uitia curat.’

Conjecture is not banished from such a scheme of criticism,
but it is only to be employed after the known sources of the text
have been classified and their worth estimated.

‘Acerrima eius (sc. ingeni) uis non temperata et subacta
assiduo usu librorum in historicis et criticis rebus frustra laborat.

differ in age do not exhibit the marked contrast in tradition that is often so
striking in classical authors. As Lachmann complains (Aleinere Schriften, vol. ii,
p. 251) the older editors always asked, ‘Is there any ground for departing from
the established text ?’ instead of asking, ‘Is there any ground for deserting the
best attested reading?’ Hence Lachmann felt himself to be following the lead
of Bentley, and not of Bengel (1687-1752) and Griesbach (1745-1812), when he
broke with the Textus Receptus altogether.

RECENSION 123

... Itaque ut ingenium, sicut par est, membranaceis thesauris
longe praeferas [perhaps with a glance at Bentley’s dictum
quoted above], plurimum tamen interest ipsius ingenii, quam
plurimos codices comparari, quorum testimoniis iudicium de uera
lectione nitatur et multis modis adiuuetur diuinatio.’

Where Wolf has been refuted (e.g. in his criticism of Cicero’s
speeches Post reditum) it has been through the accession of fresh
manuscripts—an argument which he would have been the first
to acknowledge.

Bekker (1785-1871) devoted his life to the preparation of critical
editions of Greek texts. The ferment throughout Europe which
accompanied the French Revolution and led to the subsequent
hegemony of France under Napoleon led to a quick advance in
classical studies as in all other intellectual pursuits. The down-
fall of the old order brought with it the suppression of monas-
teries, whose treasures in manuscripts were gradually drafted
into the great central libraries, such as Paris, Florence, Venice,
and Munich. Many of the most famous Italian codices were
brought to Paris by the French as the prizes of war (e.g. the
two famous Venetian manuscripts of Homer and Aristophanes).
Bekker was alive to the unique opportunity which presented
itself, and spent the early part of his life in collating Greek
manuscripts in France, Italy, Germany, Holland, and England.
His researches soon showed that there was a mass of manuscript
evidence of higher antiquity than any that had yet been examined,
and that the received texts of many authors rested upon unsure
foundations, e.g. the whole problem of the text of Isocrates
was changed by his discovery of the Urbinas (1) in the Vatican,
and it was he who saw the great value of the Paris codex of
Demosthenes (3), which had passed through the hands of
inferior scholars such as the Abbé Auger (1790) without any
appreciation of its merits. Manuscripts, except in rare instances,
are not isolated and independent witnesses, but follow one or
more lines of tradition, and along these lines of descent fall into
various groups or families. Within these groups there may be
manuscripts whose evidence is worthless because they only

124 RECENSION

repeat the evidence of earlier manuscripts which are still extant,
from which they can be proved to have been copied.’ This is
the meaning of the dictum that codices should be weighed and
not counted. For the problem of a textual apparatus can be sim-
plified by eliminating all such purely derivative evidence : e.g. in
Demosthenes the Bavaricus (B) is known now to be descended
from the Venetus (F), It is therefore no longer necessary to
collate every manuscript throughout, unless all can claim to be
independent witnesses, and much of the labour of industrious
scholars of the eighteenth century, such as the Jesuit Lago-
marsini (who collated a large number of the manuscripts of
Cicero), was thrown away. Bekker’s name may conveniently
be taken as marking a stage in the history of criticism, but his
merits as a critic have often been overestimated. He gathered
a vast mass of material, but his own work is not the architectonic
construction of a master mind. He tended to treat the oldest
MS. as 7250 facto the best, and regarded the ‘best family’ of
MSS. as the only trustworthy authority. This method is now
known to be unsound. An equally serious fault in his texts is
his neglect of Interpretation. This often leads him to follow his
chosen MSS. in readings which are demonstrably wrong.”

1 This is well expressed by Madvig (1804-1886) in his preface (1839) to his
edition of the De Finibus, p. vi. (Ed. sec.) : ‘Si cui hoc negotium sit iudici, ut,
cum, quid aliquando ab aliquo dictum sit, multi non satis constanter narrent,
reperiat, quid in ea re uerum sit, is, si prudens sit, non solum hoc spectet in
testibus audiendis, quam quisque per se ipse fidei opinionem afferat, sed ante
omnia quaerendum sibi putet, quis a quo audierit, ut sic magnam et inconditam
testium turbam ad paucos et certos redigat, a quibus ceteri rem acceperint ; cum
autem eos inuenerit, et illos alteros neglegat et hos quasi primi ordinis testes sic
comparet contendatque, ut, quantam quisque sequentium multitudinem trahat,
nihil ad rem pertinere iudicet. Nec aliter faciet peritus iudex, cum ex multis
tabularum exemplis quaeretur, quid in uno aliquo testamento, quod non extabit,
scriptum fuerit, nisi quod, quae illic de fama peruagata hominum confessione
reperiebantur, hic de scriptura propagata indiciis deprehendenda sunt tacitis.
Ab hac quaestione uniuerso genere non distare eam, quam philologi in ueterum
operum codicibus manuscriptis instituunt, nec aliter esse tractandam, non ita
multi sunt anni, cum intellectum est, neque etiam nunc ab omnibus intellegi
uidetur.’

* e.g. Aristot. Probl. 16, 8. 914"9, pointed out by I. Bywater in Journal of
Philology, xxxii, p. 108, where ἄλλου is a palpable error for αὐλοῦ,

RECENSION 125

Bekker had been content to analyse the existing manuscripts
of an author in order to distinguish the best tradition or traditions
that they contained. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), a far greater
critic, does not content himself with the evidence which our
existing manuscripts contain, but asks whether it is not pos-
sible in some cases to push inquiry beyond the existing docu-
ments. Does not their present condition betray some of the
characteristics of their lost ancestors, and is it not possible some-
times to show that a common’ ancestor or archetype (to use the
term which Lachmann first brought into use in this sense) lies
behind all or some of them? I quote, in his own words,
Lachmann’s description of the method and aim of criticism :

‘Ad scripta ueterum repraesentanda duabus diuersis utimur
artibus : nam et qui scriptor, quid scripserit disputamus, et quo
rerum statu quid senserit et cogitarit exponimus : quorum alterum
sibi zudicandt facultas uindicat, alterum iterpretatione continetur.

‘ludicandi tres gradus sunt recensere, emendare, originem dete-
gere. Nam quid scriptum fuerit, duobus modis intellegitur,
testibus examinandis, et testimoniis ubi peccant, reuocandis ad
uerum: ita sensim a scriptis ad scriptorem transiri debet.

‘Itaque ante omnia quid fidissimi auctores tradiderint quae-
rendum est, tum quid a scriptoris manu uenire potuerit iudi-
candum, tertio gradu quis quo tempore, qua condicione, quibus
adminiculis usus scripserit explorandum [1. 6. the so-called ‘higher
criticism’|. Ex auctoribus quaerere, quod primo loco posul, id
quod recensere dicitur, sine interpretatione et possumus et debe-
mus: contra interpretatio, nisi quid testes ferant intellectum
fuerit, locum habere, nisi de scriptore constiterit, absolui non
potest: rursus emendatio et libri originis inuestigatio, quia ad
ingenium scriptoris cognoscendum pertinet, tanquam fundamento
nititur interpretatione.

‘Quo fit ut nulla huius negotii pars tuto a ceteris separari pos-
sit, nisi illa una quae debet esse omnium prima: illam dico quae
testium fidem perscrutatur et locupletissimis auctoribus tradita
repraesentat.’ (Preface to Vouum Testamentum, Berlin, 1842.)

The best illustration of Lachmann’s methods is to be found in
his solution of the difficulties of the text of Lucretius as given in
his edition published in 1850. It is worth while to give a short
account of the results which he obtained.

1 Tt is a misuse of the term to speak of the ‘archetype’ of a single manuscript.

126 RECENSION

The text of Lucretius is preserved in a considerable number of
manuscripts of different ages. One class of manuscripts, and the
largest class, is Italian in origin. ‘These are all descended from
a codex, now lost, which was in the possession of Poggio in the
fifteenth century. One of these, the Nicolianus (Laurent. χχχν. 30),
is known to have been copied directly from Poggio’s codex ; but
beside this there are many which are more remotely descended
from the same source—eight at Florence, six at Rome, seven in
England. ΑΒ it is clear that all these are of the same class their
evidence is only of value in order to reconstruct the readings of
their lost ancestor. As the Nicolianus is known to be a direct
copy of this lost codex its evidence is in itself almost sufficient for
this purpose, and the remoter copies are only useful in so far as
they supplement its occasional deficiencies. Beside the Nico-
lianus there are two Vossiani at Leyden (30 and 94), named by
Lachmann, from their shape, the Oblongus and Quadratus
respectively. They are clearly of greater importance than
Poggio’s codex, which agrees now with one and now with the
other, and cannot consequently have been copied from either of
them. Lachmann with peculiar insight saw that these three
chief authorities, O Q N, presented a uniform text, and that
beside their common readings certain other peculiarities pointed
to a common archetype.

Codex O was in all probability copied direct from this arche-
type (which may be called A). Q and N are further removed
from A, and are probably both descended from a codex that was
a direct copy of A. This copy must have been made later than
O, for by the time it was made the archetype A had been
damaged, as Lachmann conclusively proved. Four sections of
the poem (ii. 757-806; v. 928-79; i. 734-85; ii. 253-304) are
placed at the end of Q and N out of their proper place. Each
of these passages (with allowance for the sectional headings
which are distributed throughout the poem) consists of 52 lines.
There are indications elsewhere that the archetype had 26 lines
toa page. It is clear therefore that four complete leaves had
become detached in it, and had been inserted at the end by the

RECENSION 127

binder. From such evidence it was possible to discover the
pagination of the archetype.

The influence of such conclusions upon the textual criticism of
Lucretius was very great. The text, it was seen, depends in
reality upon a single manuscript, whose existence Lachmann
affirms with confidence in the opening words of his preface :
‘Ante hos mille annos in quadam regni Francici parte unum
supererat Lucretiani carminis exemplar antiquum e quo cetera,
quorum post illa tempora memoria fuit, deducta sunt.’ The
Script was in rustic capitals (like the Medicean Vergil), not
divided into separate words, though the sentences were marked
by points in the middle of lines. The codex consisted of 302
pages, and was worn and mutilated. The bottom of the page
was especially liable to danger, and hence Lachmann’s con-
clusions as to the original pagination are of the highest value,
since it is now known where exceptional corruption is to be
expected. The condition of the archetype has justified the
numerous transpositions which editors have made in the text.
Verses accidentally omitted by a scribe were commonly inserted
at the foot of a page in order not to spoil the look of his copy.
No manuscript of a classical poet is entirely free from such
errors. When, however, there are numerous independent
manuscripts the lapses of one are corrected by the evidence of
its rivals. Only when the surviving manuscripts are all ulti-
mately descended from a single ancestor does the whole tradition
become contaminated.

Before proceeding to discuss the various types of textual
tradition it will be convenient to give a short description of the
usual method followed in determining the relationship between
a number of manuscripts of the same work. The best illustra-
tion of the problem involved in classification will be found in such
works as Peterson’s Collations from the Codex Cluniacensis and

1 EF. Chatelain in his Facsimile, Sijthoff, 1908, holds that between O, Q, N and

this archetype there lies a manuscript written probably in an Irish hand of the
seventh or eighth century.

128 RECENSION

A.C. Clark’s The Vetus Cluniacensis of Poggto (both in Anecdota
Oxoniensia).

(1) Before any classification can be attempted a critic must be
assured that he is dealing with properly accredited evidence.
In the case of manuscripts which are still extant there is hardly
the possibility of a forgery passing unnoticed. There is just the
possibility that a manuscript may have been tampered with: e.g.
it is thought that some alterations have been made in Parisinus
A of Theognis since Bekker’s collation made circ, 1815. But
where a manuscript is known to have existed, but has subse-
quently been lost and the report of its readings depends on the
testimony of a single scholar, his bona fides must be carefully |
established. The greater scholars are generally above suspicion,
e.g. N. Heinsius’s collation of the lost Eboracensis of Tibullus is
accepted universally. Lesser men, however, have from time to
time endeavoured to gain credence (though no credit) for their
own conjectures by attributing them to some manuscript which
never existed, e.g. H. Stephanus in Euripides, Bosius in Cicero,
and Caspar von Barth in various authors.

(2) Given a number of manuscripts containing the same
matter, it is first necessary to classify them according to their
age. A manuscript is rarely dated, and its age must usually be
determined by palaeographical tests, which, since the invention
of improved methods of photographic reproduction, increase in
delicacy and certainty with every year. As a general rule the
manuscript earliest in date is presumed to be the most valuable.
This, however, is not always true. Age, as Wolf says, does not
always bring wisdom.’ Some very early palimpsests (e.g. the
Vaticanus of Cicero’s Verrines) are full of careless errors, and, as
has already been shown, contaminated texts existed in very
ancient times. The Valentianensis of the Apocolocyntosis, which
belongs to the ninth or tenth century, is on the whole inferior to

1 Cf. Wolf, Prolegomena (Calvary ed.), p. 3. ‘Nouitas enim codicum non
maius uitium est quam hominum adolescentia: etiam hic non semper aetas
sapientiam affert: ut quisque antiquum et bonum auctorem bene sequitur, ita
testis est bonus.’

RECENSION 129

the Sangallensis, which is a century later. So too Vaticanus
40 of Theocritus, a manuscript of the twelfth century, is of
little value, and the Cryptoferratensis (palimpsest) of Strabo is
worse than the Paris codex of the eleventh century. The
manuscripts of Claudianus Mamertus are classed by the latest
editor Engelbrecht in the following order: (1) M, r1th-1reth
maui (2) CG, rth; (3) RH, roth ; (4) A,.9th; .(5) B, early
toth. It is always possible that a late manuscript may have
been copied directly from an old exemplar and be superior to
its rivals which may be far earlier in date: e.g. Parisinus
1640 of Xenophon is dated a.p. 1320, but is known to be
copied from a manuscript of the ninth century. Lagomar-
sinianus 42, containing Cicero’s Verrines, is a late manuscript
written in a rough cursive hand of the fifteenth century or
later, but has long been recognized as a copy, in part, of an
exemplar of high value—now identified with the recently
discovered Cluniacensis.

(3) It is also necessary to determine whether the manuscript
presents a text of the same quality throughout. Many manu-
scripts, especially if the text of the author is not one continuous
whole, but an aggregate of separate units, such as speeches,
poems, treatises, &c., have often been drawn from different
originals and do not possess the same authority throughout.
Thus the excellence of the text of Lag. 42 of the Verrines is only
found in Act ii. 2 and 3. In the other parts it gives the vulgate
text and is valueless. The Ambrosianus of Quintilian’s Jnsti-
tutio, amanuscript of the eleventh century, does not present a text
of uniform quality.

(4) It is necessary further to decide what is the reading of the
first hand of a manuscript. This is often a matter of some
difficulty when the manuscript has been ‘corrected’ throughout.
There is always this tendency to ‘correct’ a text which shows
any marked divergence from the vulgate. Lag. 42 has been
corrected in this way inthe Verrines, Act ii. 2 and3, and brought
into conformity with the inferior manuscripts. The same fate
has befallen the Montepessulanus (P) of Juvenal.

473 K

130 RECENSION

The usual tests to decide the genealogical relationship between
manuscripts are :

(1) Omissions of words and passages and transpositions of |
pages. Omissions are the surest test of affinity, since if they are —
numerous they can hardly have arisen by accident, and they ©
cannot have been imported into a text by comparison with other
manuscripts. They frequently imply a far closer connexion than
could be inferred from identity of reading, and often show the
immediate descent of one manuscript from another. Similarly
the same transposition is hardly likely to have occurred inde-
pendently in two manuscripts, but is a sure test of close con-
nexion, e.g. in Vitruvius VII. ch. vi the same transposition is
found in both the Harleian and the Gudianus.

(2) Agreement in a number of peculiar readings or in other
peculiarities. E.g.when some of the manuscripts of Livy x. 29. 7
agree in reading ‘quibus plerisque in scuta uerarisquerutis in
corpora ipsa fixis’, it is clear that they must all have come from

uerutis
rarisque.
tragedies the manuscripts fall into two groups according to the
order in which they place the plays.

(3) Where a manuscript is immediately copied from another
extant manuscript it is rarely possible to mistake their connexion.
It is betrayed by minute agreements, or mistakes which can
often only be discerned in the manuscripts themselves or in the
best photographic reproductions. E.g. in the Holkhamicus
there is an apparently unmeaning K before the words ‘Ad huius
studium ’ in Cic. Jn Cat. i. 26. This is found in the Medicean and
Ambrosian also.

(4) It must be remembered that the relationship between
manuscripts is not always simple, i.e. each manuscript which is
accepted as a factor in constructing the text is not necessarily
descended from one single ancestor. The problem of relation-
ship is often rendered exceedingly complex by the tendency
which is variously described as ‘contamination’, ‘mixture’, or
‘eclectic fusion’ of the different groups. A scribe may have had
before him an original filled with variants from which he has

an original where the reading stood as In Seneca’s

RECENSION 198

made his own selection; or, he may have consulted more than
one codex in making his copy. This tendency has prevailed
from the earliest times (cf. p. 49).

As an instance of simple relationship the manuscripts of
Caesar’s Gallic War may be taken. Nine manuscripts, A, M, B,
C, R, T, U, b, G, may be included in the first survey of the
materials for the constitution of the text. Their relation to one
another and to their ultimate archetype or common parent is
shown by the following stemma:

—>< --
—|—_ e—

Here the Greek letters denote manuscripts which are no
longer in existence but whose existence at some time in the past
must be assumed in order to explain the relation in which the
‘extant manuscripts stand to each other. The numbers refer to
the century in which these extant manuscripts were written.
Of these nine manuscripts two (b G) can be eliminated at once
since they are only copies of B and R respectively. The re-
maining seven fall into two well-marked groups. To the first
groupbelongAMBCR. These, however, cannot all have been
copied directly from the same exemplar, because they do not all
exhibit the same uniform text, but show by their variations that
their text has been transmitted through one or more inter-
mediaries in its descent from their common parent a. A M have
come by one line of descent which is here called y: BCR by
another which may be called ¢.

To the second group β belong two manuscripts (T U), pre-
senting a text which has been polished at some period by an
editor who has endeavoured to tone down Caesar’s terse and

K 2

132 RECENSION

vigorous style by touches of Ciceronian elegance (e.g. iv. 4. 7
‘citra Rhenum erat’ a: ‘citra Rhenum qui in suis sedibus erat’).
But in spite of presenting a ‘doctored’ text the @-group is un-
doubtedly descended from the same archetype which lies behind
the a-group.

If a and β, the two copies of A from which all the manuscripts
spring, had been of equal value, the collective testimony of each
group of their descendants would be of equal value. There
would be no ground for attaching a higher value to the a-group
merely because it includes a larger number of manuscripts.

One stage in the criticism of the text is to recover from its,
descendants the readings of the common original A. These
readings will not all be recoverable, and when recovered will not
necessarily always be correct, but they will show what was the
condition of the text at a period anterior to that in which the
existing manuscripts were written. Sometimes the date at which
the archetype was written can be conjectured from the nature of
corruptions found in its descendants. The ¢-group write the
word zosirt in the contracted form ἡ. This was not a natural
contraction of the word in the ninth and tenth centuries when
these manuscripts were written, as is shown by the fact that they
often misinterpret it and write mst or nihil, or the meaningless
nim. But it is a common contraction in manuscripts of the sixth
century, and affords at least a presumption that ¢ itself was of
that date. A therefore could not be later in date and might
possibly be earlier.

(1) Where all manuscripts agree in a reading, that reading
must have been found in A: e.g. in 1.53. 1 A read guinque or V
since both aand β give this number. This is an instance where we
are certain of the text of A, and also certain that the text is
wrong, since it can be shown from the historian Orosius that the
number should be guinquaginta.

(2) When the two groups give conflicting readings, there can
be no absolute certainty as to the reading in A unless the reading

1 Traube, Nomina Sacra, p. 213.

RECENSION 133

given by the B-group obviously shows the hand of the editor ;
e.g. vil. 11. 8cunctia: uiui B. Either of these might have been
in the archetype. In ii. 12. 1, however, where β reads pauore
(terrore a) the picturesque touch of the grammarian is to be
suspected, since pawor is not used elsewhere in the work.

(3) Where there is a cross-division between the members of
the two groups, e.g. vi. 35. 9 716 murus T: numerus a U, it must
be inferred that a U are the true representatives of the arche-
type, since it would be a most extraordinary coincidence if
six manuscripts all misread 716 murus as numerus. Here again
A is wrong and the good reading in T must be due to the con-
jecture of some unknown scholar or to ‘mixture’ (p. 130) with
some other source than A.

The following diagram will illustrate the attempt that is
sometimes made to represent the mixed descent of manuscripts
by means of a stemma. The manuscripts in question are the
chief authorities for the text of Cassius Dio:

Lxi
p*Y

\ ad Venetus 396

Parisints 1690 xvi
Vat993

xi . r, .
M Taurinensis Escurialenne

Vesontinus -

This may be interpreted as follows :

The two main authorities are L and M. L has a direct
descendant in V, which, of course, is only valuable in passages
where L has suffered injury since the time when V was copied
from it.

Lb is a mixed manuscript. The scribe who wrote it had
before him both L and M, and selected his text now from one
and now from the other. This was a common practice in all ages,
and was especially common during the Renaissance.

134 RECENSION

P is not a mixed manuscript in this sense, but might rather be
termed composite. The greater portion of it was copied from
Lb and it therefore exhibits the mixed text of its parent. But
as Lb only begins with Book 42 (Books 36-41 having been
intentionally omitted) the scribe of P copied the missing books
from L. In these books therefore it is a direct descendant of L.

The problem of recension is not always so simple as
Lachmann has made it in Lucretius. It will be convenient
therefore to consider some of the main types of tradition
which the texts of classical authors present.

A text may be preserved—
(A) In one manuscript only,

(B) In a number of manuscripts which present a uniform
tradition,

(C) In manuscripts which present two or more traditions
which are not reconcilable.

(A) The text depends upon a single manuscript. Such a manu-
script may be an early papyrus roll, e.g. Bacchylides, Aristotle’s
᾿Αθηναίων ἸΠολιτεία, Hyperides, Herodas; or a codex, e.g. the
Hymn to Demeter, the fifth Decade of Livy, Tacitus’ Annales,
Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis; or a palimpsest, e.g. Fronto,
Gaius, Cicero’s De Republica, and Symmachus’ Speeches. In
some instances the codex has disappeared, and the only evidence
rests upon a printed edition based upon it or upon a late
transcript, e.g. Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, where the only authority
which preserves the readings of a lost codex of Iohannes Sam-
bucus is the editio princeps of Gerhard Falkenburg, Terentianus
Maurus (editio princeps 1497, derived from the lost codex Bobien-
sis), Velleius Paterculus (Amerbach’s copy of the lost codex
Murbacensis), Hyginus (edition of Micyllus, Basel, 1535, which
preserves the readings of the lost Frisingensis).

(B) The text is preserved in a number of manuscripts which pre-
sent a uniform tradition. The aim in criticism in such cases is to
analyse the relations of the manuscripts to one another in order
to see whether they cannot be proved to be derived from some

RECENSION 135

existing manuscript which is their ancestor, or whether they do
not imply the existence of some lost archetype.

(1) Where such a parent codex is extant the problem of recension
is at once simplified, because the derivative copies can be
disregarded except in places where the original source has been
damaged since the copies were made; e.g. in Athenaeus’ Dezpno-
sophistae (apart from the Epitome) all manuscripts are ultimately
derived from the Marcianus (A) of the tenth century, through
a copy made in Venice in the fifteenth century. Here the parent
codex is still intact. In the Protrepticus and Paedagogus of
Clemens Alexandrinus the archetypal codex is known to be P
(= Paris. Gr. 451, formerly belonging to Arethas), which since the
time when some of the other manuscripts were copied from it
has lost five quaternions or quires each of four leaves. Accord-
ingly it is not possible to rely on P alone.

(2) The parent codex 1s now lost though it is known to have
existed. In such cases its readings have to be reconstructed
from the evidence of its descendants; e.g. all the extant
manuscripts of Catullus are known to be descended from the
lost Veronensis which was discovered early in the fourteenth
century. There are more than seventy manuscripts of the
fifteenth century which are descendants of this original. Three
copies alone (the Sangermanensis, Oxoniensis, and Romanus) are
known to belong to the fourteenth century. Here the problem
of criticism is very difficult, since owing to the interpolations of
scholars of the period of the Renaissance even the consensus
of the best codices does not necessarily imply the correctness of
a reading. Whenever the tradition of an author depends upon
interpolated manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
this difficulty always arises and often defeats criticism in poetic
texts. Prose authors are not so severely handled, as may be
seen from the condition of the text of Cicero’s Orator and De
Oratore, which have been transmitted in Renaissance copies of
the Laudensis, a manuscript of the ninth century discovered by
Gherardo Landriani, Bishop of Lodi (1418-27).

The Siluae of Statius offer an instance where criticism has

136 RECENSION

been able to effect more in a tradition of this type. The manu-
scripts of these poems are all directly derived from a codex
discovered by Poggio while at the Council of Constance in 1417.
A copy of this manuscript was made for Poggio by an ignorant
scribe and sent by him to Italy. The manuscripts of the
Siluae that are of any importance are nine in number. Five of
these (the Vallicellianus, Reginensis, and three Vaticani) form
a separate group which can be shown to be descended from the
Vallicellianus. The Vallicellianus itself is descended from the
Matritensis, from which the remaining three (Bodleianus,
Budensis, Rehdigeranus) are descended mediately or imme-
diately. Thus the Matritensis emerges as the archetype of all
existing manuscripts and the nine witnesses are reduced to one.
It only remains to carry the solution of the problem a step
farther and identify the Matritensis (as many critics do) with the
copy originally made for Poggio.

(3) The uniformity of the text implies an archetype of whose
existence, however, there 1s no external evidence. This does not
exclude the possibility of the manuscripts falling into two or
more families which reproduce the archetype with more or less
fidelity ; e.g. in Ovid’s Herordes the manuscripts fall roughly into
two families—the one in Carolingian, the other in Lombardic
handwriting. But all must be derived from the same archetype,
since all omit ii. 18-19. So, too, all the manuscripts of Juvenal
break off abruptly in the sixteenth satire and all manuscripts of
Suetonius omit the beginning of the life of Iulius.

Each text of this kind presents a different problem. It may
be certain that the text is uniform while the divergences of the
surviving manuscripts are very great. Accordingly every
manuscript may be a factor in determining the true text, and
it is rash to rely merely on the older manuscripts as critics have
often done ; e.g. inthe text of Aristophanes the tradition repre-
sented by the Aldine edition has probably been unduly neglected
in favour of the tradition of the older manuscripts the Ravennas
and Venetus.

Among uniform texts in Greek may be classed: Aeschylus,

RECENSION 137

Sophocles (excluding the worthless Triclinian recension),
_ Antiphon, Andocides, Lycurgus, Aeschines (where the manu-
| scripts are in three families all derived from a faulty archetype),
and Demosthenes (where no manuscript preserves any speeches
beyond those held to be genuine by Callimachus).

In Latin: Propertius, Seneca rhetor, Vitruvius, Valerius
Flaccus, Q. Curtius, and Celsus.

(C) The manuscript tradition is not uniform but shows marked
differences tn the two or more lines which 11 follows.

(1) Such divergence may date from the author himself and be
due to the publication of several editions of his work. EF. g. in
Martial’s Epigrams three archetypes are now recognized: a,
an ‘elegant’ edition (as Lindsay calls it) which omits gross
expressions; 8, which preserves the recension of Torquatus
Gennadius, c. A.D. 401; and y, the vulgate text. Preserved in
these three editions are readings that seem to go back to the
author himself. Certainly none of the ordinary corruptions lie
behind them: e.g. in x. 48. 23 A has ‘de prasino uenetoque meus
conuiua loquatur ’, where B C imply Scorpoque for uenetoque. It
is possible that Martial himself originally wrote Scorpogue and
emended it to wenetoque after the death of Scorpus had robbed
the line of its original point. The text of Ausonius presents
two editions which do not always cover the same ground. One—
known as the Tilianus edition from the codex Tilius, a fifteenth-
century manuscript now in Leyden—is preserved in_ late
manuscripts. The other—known as the Vossian from the
codex Vossianus of the ninth century—is preserved in much
earlier manuscripts. It has been noticed that the first collection
contains no poem that can be assigned to a year later than
A.D. 383. It is exceedingly probable that Ausonius published
this collection about that date. The second collection may have
been published after his death by his son Hesperius. ‘The text
of Statius’ Zhebais seems to require a similar explanation of
such discrepancies as 7h. iv. 555:

msequitur geminusque bibit de uertice serpens (Cod. Puteaneus),
effluit amborum geminus de uertice serpens (Vulg.),

138 RECENSION

which cannot be due to any merely graphical corruption.
Similar doublets are to be found in Ovid’s Melamine e.g.
vi. 280, 281 are parallel to 282, 283, 284.

In Greek texts the best instance of such a double tradition
is seen in the third Philippic of Demosthenes. This speech
survives in two versions, the shorter represented mainly by Σ,
the Paris manuscript, the longer by the Vulgate text. Some of
the passages in the longer version are additions, others are —
alternatives. None bear the stamp of the interpolator, and the
most convincing theory is that both versions are by Demo-
sthenes, the shorter draft representing the speech as it was
delivered, the longer the form in which it was prepared for
publication. The attempt to explain certain anomalies in the
text of Isocrates by assuming two editions has not found
general acceptance (v. Drerup, /socrates, vol. i, p. 1xxxii).

The ancient critics recognized similar explanations of such
repetitions. Cf. Galen, xvii. 1, p. 79f K.: ἐνίοτε yap ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς
πράγματος διττῶς ἡμῶν γραψάντων, εἶτα THs μὲν ἑτέρας γραφῆς κατὰ τὸ
ὕφος (the text) οὔσης, τῆς δ᾽ ἑτέρας ἐπὶ θάτερα τῶν μετώπων (the margin
to right or left of the text), ὅπως κρίνωμεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἑτέραν ἐπὶ σχολῆς
δοκιμάσαντες, ὁ πρῶτος μεταγράφων τὸ βιβλίον ἀμφότερα ἔγραψεν, εἶτα
μὴ προσσχόντων ἡμῶν τῷ γεγονότι, μηδ᾽ ἐπανορθωσαμένων τὸ σφάλμα,
διαδοθὲν εἰς πολλοὺς τὸ βιβλίον ἀνεπανόρθωτον ἔμεινε.ἦ
(2) The divergence in the tradition may be due to recensions

1 In modern literature such double versions are by no means uncommon.
E.g. Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost, iv. 3. 295-300 = 308-15 (Camb. ed., p. 234
note). In Goethe’s Faust, Part I, in the prison scene Scherer long ago raised
objection to the passage :

Waren wir nur den Berg vorbei!
da sitzt meine Mutter auf einem Stein,
Es fasst mich kalt bei’m Schopfe!
da sitzt meine Mutter auf einem Stein!
und wackelt mit dem Kopfe.

on the ground that it is in the style of a ballad and unsuited to a tragic situation.
He has been corroborated by the discovery of Goethe’s original version, which
isin prose, ‘Waren wir nur den Berg vorbey, da sizzt meine Mutter auf einem
Stein und Wackelt mit dem Kopf!’ (G.’s Faust in urspriinglicher Gestalt,
E. Schmidt, Weimar, 1899.)

RECENSION 139

of the text at various periods after the author’s death, or to
selection from a body of variant readings.’

Such recensions, as has already been stated, vary in character
from the elaborate scientific editions of Alexandrine scholars
and their Roman followers, such as Probus, to the amateur
efforts of a Mavortius or the the men whose names are mentioned
in the subscription found after some of Isocrates’ speeches in
the Urbinas: Ἑλικώνιος ἅμα τοῖς ἑταίροις Θεοδώρῳ καὶ Ἐὐσταθίῳ.
The Mavortian recension of Horace has left descendants,
as also has the Calliopian recension of Terence. The text of
Seneca’s tragedies has been manipulated in a similar way,
though the name of the editor is unknown. Here, if the
Etruscus were not extant, we should be as far removed from the
true text as we should be in Terence, if we had to rely only upon
the Calliopian manuscripts without the aid of the Bembinus.

These older recensions cannot be wholly rejected, since it is
often difficult to see the extent of the interpolations which they
contain. The late Byzantine recensions can, however, be at
once ruled out of court whenever there is earlier evidence for
the text. E.g. the text of the astronomical poem known as the
Σφαῖρα (attributed to Empedocles) must be founded on Parisinus
1310, fifteenth century, since this is the only manuscript which
has not been affected by the Triclinian recension.

(3) Often the divergence in tradition does not spring from any
intentional revision of the text, but represents a selection from
a corpus of variants preserved in the archetype.

In most texts a choice has to be made between variants which
may be at first sight equally probable. Here the same tests
must be applied as we shall find later applied to emendation
(see p. 151). These are (i) Intrinsic probability, and (ii)
Graphical or Transcriptional probability. In other words we
ask (i) What the author from all we know of him is likely to
have written, and (ii) What corruptions the transcribers at

1 It may also be due to the reckless treatment of the text by anthologists and
other manipulators, e. g. Petronius 55, where the longer version is preserved in
the Traguriensis alone.

[40 RECENSION ;

various periods are likely to have substituted for the original
text. This last question must be answered by the palaeographer.
The first must be answered by the critic who has studied the
author’s work as a whole. An answer is rendered possible by
the fact that every author has his own peculiarities of construc-
tion, vocabulary, or literary form, and in many cases some law
of style or rhythm has been discovered which provides a very
delicate test between two conflicting readings or for one resul-
tant reading. In Livy xxxi. 44. 1 the archetype undoubtedly
read ‘Haec ea aestate ab Romanis Philippoque gesta evant’.
But it is contrary to Livy’s usage to sum up the events of a year
with a verb in the pluperfect tense. This lends some probability
to Madvig’s conjecture ‘gesta terra’, especially as the passage
contains a reference to operations by sea (‘classis a Corcyra,’
&c.). Ennius does not elide the -ae of the genitive. Hence in
Trag. 207 Ribb. (quoted in Ad Herennium, ii. 22. 34 and
elsewhere) the reading is almost certainly ‘ Neue inde nauis
incohandi exordium | coepisset’, and not ‘incohandae’. Ovid
avoids the elision of a pyrrhic or dactyl ending in a, unless
before a following a (L. Miller, De Re Metr. 291). Zielinski
and others have proved by their researches into the rhythm at
the end of clauses in Cicero that certain rhythms prevail over
others. W. Meyer has noticed that in certain late Greek
writers the last accented syllable in a clause is always preceded
by two or more unaccented syllables. Nonnus does not use the
proparoxytone at the end of a hexameter except in the first foot
and except in the case of proper names.

But beside the internal or direct evidence there is generally
a certain amount of evidence for the text of an ancient author
which may be called external and indirect.

Ir every classical author stood alone, and if the only evidence
for the text was the manuscripts in which his work survived, it
would not be possible to penetrate far into the history of the text
which lies behind the manuscripts. It might often be possible
to say that a manuscript or group of manuscripts was copied

RECENSION 141

from an archetype of a certain period and of a certain hand-
| writing, but the point at which the inquiry would have to stop
) would still not be very far removed from the age to which the
| earliest manuscripts belonged. The critic would be in the
| position of a mining engineer who could only argue as to the
| course of a gold reef from the outcrop visible above the surface.
| And just as the engineer will get his evidence of the course of
a reef by boring below the surface at various points, so too the
, textual critic can often find external or indirect evidence of the
condition of a text in the ages before the existing manuscript
tradition begins. None of the best authors ever stand alone,
and beside the direct documentary evidence for their text,
important evidence survives in quotations, commentaries, and
translations. In the large critical editions such evidence is
often given in a separate section and entitled ‘ Testimonia’.

(1) Quotations, Imitations, &c. The evidence derived from the
quotations made from an ancient text by other authors or by
grammarians and lexicographers is often exceedingly valuable,
and a collection of such evidence now forms an indispensable
part of a proper apparatus criticus. Students of the New
Testament will remember the valuable inferences which can
be drawn from the works of Origen as to the condition of
the text of the various books during the third century and even
earlier.

As an instance of the evidence given by quotations on the
condition of a classical text we may take Pliny’s use of Cato de
Agricultura. Cato’s work has survived in a very imperfect con-
dition. It is full of accretions and repetitions. Among such are
the two accounts of the ‘ Propagatio pomorum aliarum arborum’
in ch. li, and ch. cxxxiii. In li. pruna are not mentioned ; in
cxxxili. they occur in the list of trees. It is almost certain that
Pliny had both passages before him and that he forgot or
omitted to notice their similarity, since in H.W. xv. 44 he
expresses his surprise that Cato has omitted prwna from his list;
while in H. NV. xvii. 96 he says, ‘Cato propagari praeter ultem
tradit ficum ... pruna,’ &c. It would seem therefore to be

"4

142 RECENSION

a justifiable inference that the text of Cato exhibited these
parallel accounts in Pliny’s time.

So too the corruption in Sallust, Hist. i. 55 ‘ post memoriam
humani’ (0. generis) was as old as the fourth century A.D.
when Aurelius Victor copied the phrase slavishly in Caes. xxxix.
15. In Propertius i. 15. 29 ‘multa prius: uasto labentur’ may
be wrong, but the phrase finds a parallel in the Dirae 7 ‘multa
prius fient’. It is even possible that the author of the Dirae
may have derived the phrase from Propertius. In Terence
Phorm. 243 editors are still undecided whether to accept the
version of the line given by Cicero in Tuse. iii. 14. 30:

pericla damna peregre rediens semper secum cogitet,
or the version of the manuscript tradition,
pericla damna exilia peregre rediens semper cogitet.

A quotation such as the last must be carefully scrutinized
before it is allowed to displace the manuscript reading. Ancient
writers (especially Aristotle) are in the habit of quoting from

memory; e.g. Aristotle, Met. 984 b 29 quotes Hesiod, Theog.
120 as ἰ

39. ¥ ἃ » , 5 ,
ἠδ᾽ Ἔρος, ὃς πάντεσσι μεταπρέπει ἀθανάτοισι,
where the extant manuscripts give

a / , ~
ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι.

Here Aristotle has probably a confused remembrance of the
Hymn to Apollo 327:

“ a , 3 ,
OS KE θεοῖσι μεταπρετποι ἀθανάτοισι.

But when in Hes. Ἔργ. καὶ ‘Hy. 288 the manuscripts all give ὀλίγη
μὲν ὁδὸς μάλα δ᾽ ἐγγύθι ναίει, while four ancient authors from Plato
downwards quote the line as λείη μὲν: ὁδός, We cannot doubt that
we have in this the genuine text of Plato’s time. A chance
quotation therefore only affords probable evidence when it is
corroborated by other evidence. (Cf. Butcher, Oxford Demo-
sthenes, Praef. vol. i.) A quotation, however, made deliberately by
a grammarian or lexicographer in order to illustrate a word or

RECENSION 143

phrase, carries great weight, e.g. Nonius’s reading in Lucr. i. 66
of tendere for tollere. Varro in the De Lingua Latina quotes
accurately from his originals, while in the De Ke Rustica it is
often obvious that he quotes from memory; e.g. in 11. 1. 20 he
quotes Plaut. Men. 289 twice and each time gives a different and
inaccurate version. The later grammarians often borrow quota-
tions from their predecessors, and as they are known to forge
quotations from lost writers the passages that they cite from
extant writers require to be carefully scrutinized (e.g. such
grammarians as Vergilius, and the scholiast to the 7015).

As an instance of the evidence to be drawn from imitations

Hes. Ἔργ. καὶ Ἣμ. 588 may be taken. Here the manuscripts give
ἀλλὰ TOT ἤδη
εἴη πετραίη τε σκιὴ καὶ Βίβλινος οἶνος.
Editors have attempted to alter the text in various ways (e.g.
ἀλλά τοι ἡδὺ εἴη πετραίη συκέη, Nauck), but the more cautious have
held their hand, owing to the imitation by Vergil in G. iii. 145
‘ubi...saxea procubet umbra’. From Aesch. Supp. 800 κυσὶν δ᾽
ἔπειθ᾽ ἕλωρα κἀπιχωρίοις ὄρνισι δεῖπνον, it is fair to infer that in //.i.5
δαῖτα and not πᾶσι was read in the time of Aeschylus.

A text can often be corrected from the text of other authors
who deal with the same or similar subjects; e. g. the reading
given by some manuscripts in Hor. Sat. i. 4. 34 ‘dummodo risum
Excutiat, sibi non, non cuiquam parcet amico’, is now accepted
on the strength of the passage in Ar. Eth. Nic. 1128 a 34
ὃ βωμολόχος... . οὔτε ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων ἀπεχόμενος εἰ γέλωτα ποιή-
oe. An interesting discussion of this problem will be found by
Gercke in Ilberg and Ruhler’s /ahrb. 1go1, pp. 1, 81, 185, from
which I have borrowed some illustrations. Diog. Laert. vili. 20
says of Pythagoras ὀργιζόμενός τε οὔτε οἰκέτην ἐκόλαζεν οὔτε ἐλεύθερον
οὐδένα. ἐκάλει δὲ τὸ νουθετεῖν πεδαρτᾶν. Lamblichus in his Life of
Pythagoras, ὃ 197, either quotes this passage or draws from a
common source. His words, οὔτε οἰκέτην ἐκόλασεν οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ὑπ᾽
ὀργῆς οὔτε τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἐνουθέτησέ τινα, justify Cobet’s emendation
in Diogenes, οὔτε ἐλεύθερον | ἐνουθέτει], thus preserving the recog-
nized distinction between κολάζειν, the proper treatment for slaves,

144 RECENSION

and νουθετεῖν, that for free men, which is found elsewhere in Greek,
and giving a recognizable meaning to the clause which follows.

The biography of one author often influences biographies of
authors of the same class, e.g. Suet. Life of Horace (Reiffer-
scheid 44) :

‘Quintus Horatius Flaccus Venusinus, patre ut ipse tradit
libertino et auctionum coactore, [ut uero creditum est salsamen-
tario, cum illi quidam in altercatione exprobrasset : “ Quotiens
ego uidi patrem tuum brachio se emungentem]”’,’

This statement is in all probability not interpolated as editors
have assumed, but was found by Suetonius in the original
authorities whom he consulted. These authorities have assimi-
lated Horace’s life as far as possible to that of his model Bion of
Borysthenes, of whom Diog. Laert. iv. 46 says ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ μὲν ἦν
ἀπελεύθερος, τῷ ἀγκῶνι ἀπομυσσόμενος (διεδήλου δὲ τὸν ταριχέμπορον).
Similarly in Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne phrases are constantly
borrowed from Suetonius’ Life of Augustus.’

It is not often that the accuracy of a reading can be tested by
reference to the original source from which the compiler has
drawn; e.g. Apollonius, Vita Aeschints 9 ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ἐξέπεσεν ὑπὸ
TOV τριάκοντα Kal στρατευόμενος Τκαὶ εὐνοίας Kal ἀριστείων ἠξιώθη,
which is drawn from Aesch. Fals. Leg. 147 συμβέβηκεν αὐτῷ
ἐκπεσόντι ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα στρατεύεσθαι μὲν ἐν TH Agia ἀριστεύειν δ᾽
ἐν τοῖς κινδύνοι. Hence καὶ εὐνοίας is a corruption for ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ.

(2) Scholia, Ancient Commentaries, Lexica. The scholia (σχόλιον,
a short discussion of a difficult passage) are commentaries
which have grown up round the texts of the principal authors,
especially poets. As has been explained above, they have been
the means of preserving many of the texts which they accom-
pany. Generally they combine the learning of all periods—
Alexandrine, Byzantine, Carolingian, and Renaissance; e. g.
the Venetian scholia on Aristoph. Vesp. 924 have ἐν Σικελίᾳ ὧν
τοὺς Σικελιώτας πάντας ἐπραίδευε---α late Byzantine note; Juvenal
i, 128 on ‘sportula deinde forum iurisque peritus Apollo’ ‘ Forvm

1 Cf. Ihm, Suetonius, I. p. viii, note 2: ‘ Einhardus etsi non multum confert ad
crisin Suetoni, tamen neglegendus non est.’

RECENSION 145

uenalium rerum, Apo.to deinde ubi placitabant ’—a Carolingian
note, p/acitare being the regular Frankish term for holding a
meeting. An instance of a Renaissance comment will be seen in
Plaut. Mostell. 22: ‘ PERGRAECAMINI; sic hodie turchi faciunt in
suis potationibus ut hodie dici posset perturchamini.’ The
scholia therefore need to be carefully examined before their
evidence is invoked, since they consist of different strata of vary-
ing value.

They consist usually of a lemma (λῆμμα), i. 6. the matter taken
from the text, and of the comment upon it. The readings pre-
served in the lemmata are rarely worthy of much consideration.
When the note is copied from one codex into another the read-
ing in the lemma is generally adjusted to the reading in the text
of the new codex, so that the only safe indication of the reading
which the scholiast had before him is to be found in the substance
of his note; e.g. in Hor. Serm. ii. 2. 116 EDULCE is prefixed in
cod. ¢ to Porphyrion’s note, though that is clearly a comment on
the correct reading EDI LUcE. Thus, though the lemmataare un-
trustworthy, the evidence latent in the notes themselves is often
most valuable’; e.g. Juv. viii. 148, where the manuscript read-
ing was ‘rotam astringit multo sufflamine consul’, but the
scholiast’s note ‘mulio est qui consul fertur’ implies that he read
“sufflamine mulio consul’; Aesch. Cho. 262, where the reading
davapias μέγαν δόμον is seen to be δ᾽ ἂν ἄρειας from the comment
δύνασαι ἀνοικοδομῆσαι; ibid. 418 πάντες codd.: τί εἰπόντες schol.
implying the reading φάντες : Hesiod, Theog. 91 ἐρχόμενον δ᾽ ἀνὰ
ἄστυ θεὸν ὡς ἱλάσκονται, where the scholiast has av’ ἀγῶνα (for ἀνὰ
ἄστυ) a reading confirmed by the Achmim papyrus.

The lemmata not infrequently introduce fresh corruptions.
In Latin poetry they often consist of the beginning or end of the
_line in which the word explained occurs. This has its origin in
the custom of writing the note in the right or left hand margin
against the line to which it refers. If these margins became
inconveniently full and the note in a subsequent copy had to be

1 Cf. Bywater, Contrib. to Textual Criticism of the Ethics, p. 2; and Hosius,
Lucan 3, p. xlii.

473 L

146 RECENSION

transferred to the upper or lower margin the scribe often pre-
faced it with the beginning or end of the line in order to facilitate
reference. This explains why ignorant copyists often prefix
a lemma from the line preceding or following that to which the
note applies. If such a lemma is of any considerable length,
some of the words are only roughly indicated ; e. g. on Juv. x. 315
the lemma PLVS QVAM LEX VL. D. RI represents ‘plus quam
lex ulla dolori’. It is not improbable that some of the variants
in Latin scholia have been produced through misunderstanding
caused by such contractions; e. g. Juv. vii. 58 the lemma runs,
INPATIENS CVPIDVS SILVARVM AVIDvs, whence Jahn has intro-
duced auzdus into the text in place of aptus. Vahlen (Opuscula,
i. 249) ingeniously suggests that Avipvs only represents A. VI.
DIs, i.e. ‘aptusque uiuendis’, the concluding words of the line,
with the common misspelling of wéwendis for bibendis.

Such scholia must be kept distinct from the ordered comment-
aries, treatises, and paraphrases which were the work of a single
scholar, e.g. Servius on Vergil, Asconius on Cicero, and the
various commentaries on Aristotle, such as those of Simplicius
and Alexander Aphrodisiensis. These treatises are not parasites
surrounding a text, but existed as separate works and are often
of the very highest value. The use to which such commentaries
can be put in estimating the age of an archetype is well illustrated
by Diels in his history of the text of Aristotle’s Physics (Abhandl.
der Akad. zu Berlin, 1882). He shows that there are many
lacunae in the manuscripts in passages which were intact in the
texts of the commentators of the 2nd—6th centuries Α. Ὁ.
Hence all our manuscripts must be derived from a faulty arche-
type. The date of this archetype can be roughly calculated
since the corrupt passage in 216» 17 appears in the commentary
of Averroes who uses Arabic versions of the ninth century. The
present tradition must therefore have developed between 600
and 800 A. D.

(3) Translations. Few translations from Latin into Greek
have survived. The best known is the version of parts of Ovid
made by the Byzantine Planudes. Seneca JN. Q. iv. a is found

RECENSION 147

in a shortened version made in Greek by Iohannes Lydus (sixth
century), and the pseudo-Aristotelian περὶ κόσμου is translated in
Apuleius de Mundo.

Early translations from Greek into Latin, such as those of
Aratus by Cicero, Germanicus, or Avienus, are not common and
are too free to be of much assistance as authorities for the
original text. Passages of Greek authors are often paraphrased
by Cicero in his philosophical works ; e. g. Cic. de Rep. i. 66=
Plato de Rep. 562 c-p; Cic. Orator 41=Plato Phaedr. 279 a,
where the text of Cicero supports the reading εἴτε of the Clarkianus
against the ordinary ἔτι re. A better instance of what is to be
gained from an early translation is seen in Tertullian de Anima
18, where a translation is given of Plato Phaedo 65 a:

, Ν x ἣν SEES. ‘ a“ , a - ,ὔ > ,
τί δὲ δὴ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν ; πότερον ἐμπόδιον
quid tum erga ipsam prudentiae possessionem ? utrumne impedimentum

Ν “ x » 27 τον ἣν, Ν a / > a , Ε
TO σωμα ἢ OV, εαν TLS AUTO κοίνωνον συμπαρα. αμβάνῃ εν ΤΊ ζητήσει y

erit corpus, an non, si quis illud socium assumpserit in quaestionem ?
2 , , ς - »᾿ 2\/

οἷον τὸ τοιόνδε λέγω" ἄρα ἔχει ἀλήθειάν Twa ὄψις τε Kal ἀκοὴ

Tale 4 quid ___ dico, habetne ueritatem aliquam uisio εἰ auditio
ms , \ e ων .οΝ A

ros GvOpwrrots, .... +2266. καὶ OL ποιηταὶ ἡμῖν ἀεὶ θρυλοῦσιν

hominibus, an non? Annon) etiam poetae (haec) nobis semper obmussant,
“ ΞΡ 5 3 , 3 Ν ΕΚ ΕΣ ἘΞ
ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἀκούομεν ἀκριβὲς οὐδὲν οὔτε ὁρῶμεν ;

quod neque audiamus certum neque uideamus ?

Here Tertullian’s order differs once from the manuscripts
(which give ἐν τῇ ζητήσει κοινωνὸν συμπ.). Also he adds ἢ ov after
ἀνθρώποις, and evidently read *Ap’ οὐ in the next sentence where
the manuscripts have ἢ ta ye τοιαῦτα.

The mediaeval translations of Aristotle, of which the best known
are the Latin translations by a Dominican monk, William of
Moerbecke (a town on the borders of Flanders and Brabant)
c. 1260, are often useful from the slavish accuracy with which
they follow the original text word for word. If the version
follows a good manuscript its very defects are merits for the
purposes of criticizing the original text.

The Vetusta Translatio of the Rhetoric belongs to the same
class. It is full of ludicrous mistakes ; e.g. in 1405b 20 fododa-

1 2

148 RECENSION

κτυλος ἠώς is translated ‘rhododactylus quam ut’ (i.e. ἢ ὡς). But
in spite of this it is clear that it has been made from a good
manuscript whose readings it faithfully reproduces; e.g. 1398 b 32
it has for καὶ Ἡγήσιππος ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐπηρώτα, ‘ Hegesippus polis
vel in Delphis interrogabat’: clearly reproducing a variant

πολις
Ἡγησιππος, which must have been added by some scholar who

knew that the Hegesippus here mentioned is called Hegesipolis
by Xenophon. In 1374 a 16 it alone preserves the right reading
ἔλαβε for ἔκλεψε.

The translations made by the humanists of the fifteenth century
rarely offer much evidence for the settlement of a text. Where
a good reading is suggested—as by Lorenzo Valla, the translator
of Thucydides and by Ficinus in Plato—it may often be due to the
acumen of the translator.

The evidence from translations rarely effects such a revolution
in the recension of a text as has recently been found necessary
in the De Viris Iilustribus of St. Jerome. The interpretation of
the evidence of the numerous manuscripts (there are about 120)
has had to be altered entirely since the publication of von
Gebhart’s critical edition of the Greek translation by Sophronios.
This translation shows that Jerome really issued two editions.

The change which a careful recension has effected in classical
texts is undeniable. The result is more striking in Latin than
in Greek for reasons which have already been considered,
(p. 24). Any one who reads such authors as Plautus, Caesar,
or Juvenal in a sixteenth-century edition and then passes to
a modern critical edition cannot help seeing that in numberless
passages a veil has been lifted from the text and that the reader
is perceptibly nearer to the author’s own words. As we have
seen, this has been accomplished by the discovery of older
manuscripts which present a sincerer text, i.e. a text not
necessarily uniform or free from corruption, but at any rate free
from the interpolations of the scholars of the Byzantine and
Italian revivals. But the Greek papyri (and there is no reason
to believe that Latin papyri would tell a different tale) now show

He

RECENSION 149

us that the genealogical method has its limitations. The groups
of extant manuscripts in which a text is preserved do not
descend in a direct line from the author’s original text. They
lead us back to a text which, even in ancient times, was sown
with variant readings. As long as there was a flourishing book
trade in Greece and Rome this mass of variants infected the
texts that were mostin demand. Texts were ina state of constant
oscillation and inclined towards the good or bad variants
according as they were protected or neglected by ancient
scholars. When the victory of Christianity destroyed the
ancient book trade, the codices of a work which survived to be
copied in monasteries became the parents of the different groups
which are still preserved. The genealogical method therefore
by which these groups have been recognized and their value
assessed can rarely do more than clear the ground. Where
successful it provides a tentative text containing variant readings
that were current at a very early period. But in constructing
a text no group can be discarded till it has been scrupulously
examined, since the papyri show that inferior manuscripts can
inherit good readings. In deciding between the variants which
are left after this preliminary survey we have to rely on Inter-
pretation, i.e. our knowledge of the author, of his style and
technique, of the sources and conditions of his work, and, so far
as we can recover it, of the subsequent history of his text.
[The main authorities are :—
Brass, F. Hermeneutik und Knritik in vol.i of 1. Miller’s Handbuch der klasst-
schen Altertumswissenschaft.
Borcxu, A. Encyclopadie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften.
Leipzig, 1877.
Gercxe, A. Formale Philologie, pp. 37-79 in vol.i of Einleitung in die Alter-
tumswissenschaft, Leipzig, 19to.
Haupt, M. De Lachmanno critico, in N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt. t911, pp. 529-538.
ΤΕΒΒ, Sir R.C. Textual Criticism in Companion to Greek Studies, ed. Whibley.
Cambridge, 1905.
Leumann, P. Franciscus Modius als Handschriftenforscher. Munich, 1908.
Posteate, J. P. Textual Criticism in Companion to Latin Studies, ed. Sandys.
Cambridge, IgIo.
—— Article on Textual Criticism in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 191.
WattenzacH, W. Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter. Leipzig, 1896. |

CHAPTER VII

EMENDATION

Ὥσπερ yap τὸ μεταγράφειν τὰς παλαιὰς ῥήσεις προπετές, οὕτω Kal φυλάττοντας ὡς
γέγραπται βραχείαις τέ τισιν ἢ προσθέσεσιν ἢ ὑπαλλάξεσι διαλύεσθαι τὰς ἀπορίας
ἀγαθῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἐστιν ἔργον. --- GALEN, vii. 894 (Κ ἀΠη).

Boni critici est tacere potius quam nihil dicere neque κακοῖσιν ἰᾶσθαι κακά. --
Coser, Nov. Lect. viii.

Im Allgemeinen kann man behaupten, dass von 100 Conjecturen, welche die
Kritiken machen, nicht 5 wahr sind. “Apioros κριτὴς 6 ταχέως μὲν συνιείς, βραδέως
δὲ xpivwy.—Borcku, Encyclopddie, p. 175.

Rationem captiuam sub iugum codicum mittunt.—Mapvie, Adu. i. 59.

Nam interdum etiam homines alioquin prudentes sic se molestis uerbis
liberare student, ut obliuisci uideantur scribas simplices quidem illos homines
fuisse, sed tamen sanae mentis.—Ib. p. 64.

Cauendum est ne rimandis litterarum apicibus errorumque uiis indagandis
occupati sensum sermonis ueteris hebescere patiamur librariorumque dum causam
agimus ingenio scriptorum iniuriam faciamus.—VAHLEN, Opusc. i. 23.

Gens illa medicorum qui in locis sanis sanandis operam perdunt.—O, Crusius.

ALL that a proper recension of a text can effect is to report
the evidence of the documents in which the text has been
preserved, and to decide which documents owing to their age or
character are the most trustworthy. But though in most cases
this process brings us appreciably nearer to the autograph, i.e.
the text as it was originally written by the author, yet it always
leaves a residuum of passages, greater in number or less according
to the character and history of the text in question, which no
longer present the words which the author originally wrote.
These are the passages’ usually described as ‘corrupt’, and
before we acquiesce in such- corruptions we must consider
whether they can be removed or emended. If there is reason
to suppose that some portion of the text has disappeared without
leaving any trace behind, the injury is irreparable and a careful
editor will mark a lacuna in the text until fresh documentary
evidence is available. Sometimes, in order to show the reader
concisely how he thinks tle passage should be interpreted, he

EMENDATION 151

may supply the missing words from hints that are given by the
context or by kindred writings, Xc., but if he does not wish to
prejudice the reader unduly he will print such suggestions in the
margin, since they are only attempts to replace the text and
cannot be held to restore it. In by far the largest number of
corrupt passages, however, the text has been defaced but not
entirely destroyed, and can be restored with more or less
probability by emendation. How are we to estimate the degree
of probability that an emendation possesses, and how are we to
decide between rival suggestions? By invoking the same two
tests which we have already applied in recension where it has
been found necessary to decide between variant readings of
apparently equal authority, i.e. (1) Transcriptional Probability
and (2) Intrinsic Probability.

The emendation must possess Transcriptional Probability,
i.e. it must explain how the copyist came to err, and in order
to do this it must be palaeographically probable. Otherwise it
will be little more than a fortunate guess. ‘ Divination’ of this
kind, upon which the older critics prided themselves, may
occasionally be proved to be right through the discovery of
fresh evidence, such as early papyri, but it proceeds from no
method and conveys no certainty. Hence in cases where the
corruption has passed beyond the possibility of explanation by
palaeography, emendation becomes little more than guesswork.
Thus, to take an instance, in the poem of Solon preserved by
Aristides li. 536the phrase τοὺς δ᾽ ἀναγκαίης ὕπο
is unintelligible, and the correct reading ἀναγκαίης ὕπο χρειοῦς
φυγόντας, Which is now known from the British Museum papyrus
of Aristotle ᾿Αθηναίων TloAure(a xii. 7, could never have been
justified by palaeography if it had been suggested as an emenda-
tion by any modern scholar.

The emendation must be intrinsically probable, i. e. it must be
something that the author is likely to have written. It must suit
the context, the author’s style and vocabulary, and any general
laws which have been proved to apply to his works. This is
what Galen has in mind when he insists that we should take

χρησμὸν λέγοντας

152 EMENDATION

into account not merely the λέξις of Hippocrates, but also the
ἑρμηνεία and γνώμη, in deciding between rival readings and con-
jectures.! Nowhere is this more necessary than in dealing with
the text of Galen’s own works: e.g. in his use of the reflexive
pronoun of the third person for the first and second; in his use
of ἄν with the future indicative ; and in his Isocratean avoidance
of hiatus. An instance of an emendation which is palaeo-
graphically probable can be seen in Cobet’s alteration of Suidas’
τῶν ἁγίων ἀναργύρων into τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων : but this is found to
be intrinsically improbable when it is discovered that the ἀνάργυροι
were the two physician saints, Cosmas and Damian, who practised
without fee. On the other hand emendation of the meaningless
existimatio uestra tenebrae in Cic. pro Flacco ὃ 12 by the con-
jecture extstimatio uerba et ineptiae attains a high degree of
probability on the strength of the parallel passage in Jn
Pisonem § 65.

Every sound generalization with regard to language and style
proves fatal to a number of hasty emendations. Thus the ex-
amination of Attic usage puts out of court Naber’s conjecture of
ἐνερτέρων for νεωτέρων in Aristophon Frag. 13, Dindorf’s παύσει
av in Ar. Plut, 136 and ἐπικράναι in Aesch. Suppl. 624. The
examination of the laws of metrical prose destroys as many
emendations as it suggests, e.g. in the preface to Avianus,
‘quis tecum de poémate loquerétur,’ the emendations confendet
and /oquetur disturb the cursus uelox τ, ve which Avianus
almost certainly intended to use.

But unsound generalizations have in their turn produced
a crop of unnecessary emendations. These are seen in the
attempts made to normialize the text of an author by smoothing
down roughnesses and imposing an unnatural standard of
syntax and vocabulary, e. οὶ Dawes’ Canon forbidding the use of
the first aorist subjunctive active or middle after ὅπως μή and οὐ
py,—a rule which rests upon an incomplete induction ; or Cobet’s
attempts to force the text of Xenophon to conform to the usage

1 Brécker, Die Methoden Galens in der literarischen Kritik, Rh. Mus. 1885,
P. 433:

EMENDATION 153

of the stricter Attic writers. The earlier scholars frequently
erred through not making sufficient allowance for the indi-
viduality of an author. They made the style of a few supreme
writers into a law for all writers of the same class. Thus the
Italians of the sixteenth century see all Latin prose writing
through the style of Cicero; and the earlier Dutch scholars
(e.g. N. Heinsius) vitiated their criticism of Catullus, Tibullus,
and Propertius by judging them according to the standard of
Ovid and by endeavouring to foist Ovidian elegances upon them.

Hence if emendation is to attain any degree of probability it
must satisfy not one but both of these tests. Yet if both cannot
be satisfied there is this difference in value between them. An
emendation that violates Transcriptional Probability while it
satisfies Intrinsic Probability may possibly be true, though we
have no right to presume its truth; an emendation, however,
which satisfies Transcriptional Probability yet violates Intrinsic
Probability is wholly valueless. This only means that the good
critic must be something more than a mere palaeographer.

We may assume then that the textual critic has considered
the Intrinsic Probability of his emendation,—has properly ‘in-
terpreted’ his text as Lachmann would say (v. p. 125), and is now
proceeding to test his suggestion by what palaeography can tell
him of the various errors to which copyists are prone. These
errors may for convenience be classified as follows:

Errors arising from:
I, ConFUSIONS AND ATTEMPTS MADE TO REMEDY THEM.

(1) Confusion of similar letters and syllables.

(2) Misinterpretation of Contractions.

(3) Mistranscription of words through general resemblance.

(4) Wrong combination or separation ; wrong punctuation.

(5) Assimilation of Terminations and accommodation to
neighbouring construction.

(6) Transposition of letters (anagrammatism) and of words
and sentences; dislocation of sentences, sections, and
pages.

(7) Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and vice versa.

154 EMENDATION

(8) Confusion of Numerals.

(9) Confusion in Proper Names.

(το) Mistakes due to change in pronunciation. Itacism, &e.

(11) Substitution of synonyms or of familiar words for un-
familiar. .

(12) New spellings substituted for old.

(13) Interpolation or the An to repair the results of
unconscious errors.

II. Omissions.

(14) Haplography, or the omission of words or syllables
with the same beginning or ending (homoeoarcta and
homoeoteleuta).

(15) Lipography (parablepsia), or simple omission of any kind.

III. Appitions.
(16) Repetition from the immediate (Dittography) or neigh-
bouring context.
(17) Insertion of interlinear or marginal glosses or notes
(Adscripts).
(18) Conflated readings.
(19) Additions due to the influence of kindred writings.

Such a classification takes as its basis of division the patholog
of the written text. It would be equally possible to frame
a different classification by taking as the basis of division the
source of all such defects, i.e. the scribe or scribes who have
written the text. Looked at from this point of view the common
errors are sometimes held to fall into two classes: (1) Visual
Errors, i.e. substitutions, omissions, or additions which the eye
of the scribe makes through weakness or inattention, (2) Psycho-
logical Errors, which arise from the tendency of the mind—
a tendency often amounting to little more than an unintelligent
instinct—to read some meaning into its own mistakes or the
mistakes in the exemplar from which the copy is made. The
main corruptions in classical texts are due to errors of this
class, and textual emendation may become the mere plaything
of palaeography if this truth is forgotten. The worst scribe

“2

EMENDATION 155

cannot copy mechanically for long without allowing some play
to his intelligence. As Jerome says in Eff. 71. 5 ‘scribunt non
quod inueniunt sed quod intellegunt’. Even at the-worst he
hardly ever copies letter for letter any writing that he under-
stands. When visual errors happen, as happen they must from
time to time, the harm inflicted on a text which is preserved in
more than one. manuscript is often wholly transitory. A mean-
ingless word like TETERA for CETERA (owing to the similarity
of c and T in rustic capitals) is bound to arrest the attention of
the reader, however careless he be, and is soon corrected by
conjecture or by comparison with other copies. But an error
like conTENTVS for CONCENTVS may invade a number of copies.
The word has a meaning, and may even have a meaning in the
passage where it is substituted if the reader is careless and
stupid, and does not take the trouble to interpret the context.
The instances where the change of a letter will bring sense to
a vox nihili in a well-attested text are exceedingly rare, and we
might well be spared a great deal of the ‘palaéographische
Taschenspielerei’ against which Schubart protested more than
fifty years ago.t. The case is different where the text depends
upon a single manuscript, or upon a few inferior manuscripts
descended perhaps from a transcript made by a late scribe who
was almost ignorant of the language which he was copying.
Proper names offer the one exception to this rule. They are
often unfamiliar to the best scribes, and purely visual errors are
often found in them since the scribe has to copy letter for
letter.

In most instances, therefore, it will be found that the scribes
copy words and not letters, and the true source of their errors is
psychological as well as visual. Their attention is not focused
on the similarity of letters, though it is often this similarity that
suggests the confusion between words. Often, however, it is the
general similarity between two words rather than the similarity
between the one or two letters in which they differ that has

1 J. H. Ὁ. Schubart, Bruchstiicke zu einer Methodologie der diplomatischen
Kritik, 1855.

156 EMENDATION

brought about the confusion between them: e.g. κενός : ἕένος,
ὑπογραφέως : ὑπὸ γναφέως (Stob. Append. Flor. p. 36, Gaisf.), cani-
mus τ canibus (Verg. Ecl. iv. 3), rursus : cursus (ib. viii. 4),
uoluptas : uoluntas (Liv. xxi. 4. 6, Plin. Epp. ii. 17. 24) are inter-
changed from their general similarity and not because κ and &,
p and ν, m and ὦ, c and 7, p and m are easily interchangeable.
Or again the scribe’s eye wanders in the immediate environment
of the words which his pen is writing, and is influenced by some
letter or letters which precede or follow, e. g. in Suet. Diu. Aug.
32. 3 addidit (Stephanus) is the generally accepted emendation
of addixit which is found in all the manuscripts. If the sentence
be looked at as a whole—‘Quartam (decuriam) addidit ex inferiore
censu ’—it will be seen that the mistake has not arisen from the
similarity of the letters d and x, but has been imported from the
word ex which immediately follows. Liv. xlii. 67. 2 gives et pro-
pinquo for ex propinquo. Here the scribe’s eye has travelled
backwards to the e¢ which he has written in the preceding word
Magetas. Many of the instances of the interchange of letters in
the capital script given by Ribbeck in his Vergii, vol. i, pp. 235
sqq., seem to be due to the environment of the word rather than
to the causes which he alleges, viz.: (1) the pronunciation of
vulgar Latin ; (2) the influence of the old Roman cursive script
of the type found in the Pompeian graffiti. It is difficult to
believe that the rough cursive hands have played such a part in
the transmission of so important an author as Vergil when it is
clear from the Carmen Actiacum that the capital script was in
common use in A.D. 79.'

11 print a few of Ribbeck’s instances, adding in each case the neighbouring
words. In the following the scribe’s eye has travelled forward. B= M
(according to Ribbeck) G. i. 319 RADICJMVSI/MIS for radicabus imis. G. ii.
488 CONVALLIMVSHAEMT for conuallibus Haemt. L=P G. ii. 304
CARMINIBVSLATRISLANCESETLIBA for carminibus patrits lances et liba.
L = R Aen. i. 103 VERVMADVERSA for uelum aduersa, N = R 6. iv. 145
PINVMETSPINOS for pirttm et spinos. In the following instances it has
travelled backwards: B = L Aen. xi. 849 MONTESVSABTO for monve sub alto.
D=G Aen. xi. 720 CONGREGITVR for congreditur. 1, -- αὶ Aen. i. 414
MOLIRIVEMOLAM for moliriue moram. G. iv. 45 RIMOSACVBILIARIMO
for rimosa cubilia limo, Aen. vii. 624 PARSARDVVSARTIS for pars arduus

EMENDATION 157

Many of the early treatises such as Canter’s Syntagma (1566)
suffer from this tendency to isolate a given letter from the sur-
roundings in which it is written; and many of the more recent
treatises such as Bast’s Commentatio Palacographica, Hagen’s
Gradus ad Criticen, or Wessely’s Introduction to the facsimile
of the Vienna Livy, may lead a student to the despairing con-
viction that any letter in ancient handwriting can be inter-
changed with any other if he does not bear in mind the word in
which the interchange occurs and the character of the neigh-
bouring letters.

So too in dealing with the remaining forms of corruption
which are discussed below discrimination must be used before
they are assumed and emended. The medicine is worse than
useless without a good diagnosis. This diagnosis will have
been provided by the inquiries into the history of the text which
form part of any accurate recension. Not every kind of cor-
ruption is found in every writer or at every period. A gram-
matical or lexicographical work will contain abbreviations that
must not be assumed in the works of a poet or a historian.
Owing to the confined space in which they are written scholia
and similar marginalia require special abbreviations which are
hardly ever used in the body of the text. It would be absurd,
therefore, to base an emendation on the mistaken use of an
abbreviation which the scribe would never have used; e.g. 7
would be a fitting sign for παροιμία in a paroemiographer or
lexicographer, but not in an ordinary text ; ἴ = μοὶ to introduce
a variant reading is not to be assumed in early manuscripts
though it is common later.

altis. L=V G. iv. 467 FAVCESAVTAOSTIA for fauces alta ostia. It is
difficult also to believe with Chatelain (Preface to Sijthoff’s facsimile of the
Oblongus of Lucretius) that the confusion between B and D has been inherited
from such hands as the early papyri and the Dacian tablets exhibit: e.g. arbor
for ardor (i. 668) seems a case of general resemblance, dibenti for bidenti (v. 208)
to be due to anagrammatism. Often where letters are really similar the
confusion is due to some neighbouring word; e. g. Eur. Phoen. 184 μεγαλαγορίαν
has been corrupted into peyaAavopiay owing to the following word tmepavopa.
Cf. Heraeus, Quaestiones criticae, 1885, p. 92 sq.

158 EMENDATION

I. CoNnNFUSIONS AND ATTEMPTS MADE TO REMEDY THEM,
(1) Confusion of similar letters.

(a) In Greek
A, A, A. Aesch. Suppl. 254 αἴδνης diadyos (αἶαν ἧς δι᾿ ἁγνός).

Eur. Hel. 1584 δαίμον᾽ (λαιμόν). Apoll. Rhod. 2. 1260 ἀλημο-
σύνῃσιν (δαημοσύνῃσιν). Aesch. Suppl. 96 δὲ ἀπιδὼν (δ᾽ ἐλπίδων).
Anth, Pal. vi. 190 αἷψα (Aira).

B, k. Aesch. Cho. 936 καρύδικος (βαρύδικος). id. Eun. 246 νεκρόν
(νεβρόν). Eur. Cycl. 346 κῶμον (βωμόν).

B,p. Soph. O.C. 217 μένεις (βαίνεις). Diog. Laert. x. 140 (συμβαίνει
(συμμένει, Bywater). Aesch. Cho. 1068 παιδόμοροι (παιδοβόροι).

8, v. This confusion is nearly always due to similarity of
pronunciation. Occasionally it arises from similarity of
form; v. Cobet, Variae Lectiones, p. 219.

ri, rt, rn. Cf. Galen, K. xiv. p. 31, where the question is the
confusion of letters representing numbers. τὰ δὲ δὴ βιβλία
τὰ κατὰ τὰς βιβλιοθήκας ἀποκείμενα, TA TOV ἀριθμῶν ἔχοντα σημεῖα,
ῥᾳδίως διαστρέφεται, τὸ μὲν E ποιούντων Θ (καθάπερ καὶ τὸ O) τὸ
δὲ 1 Τ', προσθέσει μιᾶς γραμμῆς, ὥσπερ ye καὶ ἀφαιρέσει μιᾶς ἑτέρας.

Eur. loz 15 οἶκον (ὄγκον. Aesch. Ag. 512 καὶ παγώνιος (καὶ

παιώνιος). id. Pers. 926 yap φύστις (ταρφύς tis). Eur. Androm.
814 μέγ᾽ ἀλγεῖ (μεταλγεῖ). Soph. Ant. 368 παρείρων (γεραίρων).

Ε, Θ, Ὁ, 6. Plutarch, Moralia 696 F ἔργον (θρῖον). Plato, Politicus
284 A διελοῦμεν (διολοῦμεν). Lysias vill. 11 ἐφ᾽ ὧν (σφῶν).
Plutarch, Moralia 20 Ὁ οὖσιν (θύειν). ib. 1099 C θυσίας (οὐσίας).

Ζ, Ξ, ἵ, ξ. Eur. Heraclid. 493 σφάζειν (σφάξειν). id. Heracles 248
στενάζετε (στενάξετε).

z,T. Eur. Antiope fr. 209 σοι τήνδ᾽ ἐς εὐνήν (σοι Ζῆν᾽ és). Hesy-
chius, 8. v. ταμίαν (ζαμίαν).

Η, ΤΙ, η, τι. Isaeus ii. 25 ἤδη ποτ᾽ (τί δή wot). ib. ΧΙ. 19 τί ἔτι δεῖ
μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἢ (ti) ποθεῖτε ἀκοῦσαι (a haplography through
confusion with H or I).

1 In this section and in the following section only a few of the commoner
interchanges are given.

EMENDATION 159

H,1C. Hymn to Demeter 51 φαινόλη (pawodXis).

H, Κ, ἡ. x. Eur, Bacch. 1048 πικρόν (ποιηρόν). Lysias xii. 86 ἢ
ἀγαθοί (κἀγαθοῦ. Galen Κα. xix, p. 9 εἴρητο (ἦρκτο).

H, Π. Lysias xxx. 17 εὔπλων (στηλῶν). Arist. Rhet. 1400 19
Ἡρόδικος (Πρόδικος). Max. Tyr. p. 450. 15 (Hobein) Ipddorov
(Ἡρόδοτον).

K,1C. Aesch. Cho. 897 μαστὸν πρὸς ὠκύ (πρὸς ᾧ σύ).

Athen. p. 500 ὁ ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Δερκυλλίδας ὃ Λακεδαιμόνιος σκύφος
(Σίσυφος, cf. Xen. Hell. ili. τ. 8).

This corruption leads to many interchanges, e.g. κτᾶσθαι,
ἵστασθαι: πλεκτός, πλεῖστος : ἄριστος, ἄρκτος : ἐκ, εἰς : εἷς ὦν,
ἑκών (Lucian Ixx. 25).

AA, M. Plat. Gorg. 492 Ὁ ἄλλοθεν BTP (ἁμόθεν). Soph. O.C.
1266 τἄλλα (rape).

h, χ. Lysias xxi. 10 εἷλον (εἶχον). Eur. Δ, 1065 ἀπώλετο (ἀπῴχετο).
id. Alc. 905 ayer (oder).

M,N, μιν. Lysias xix. 61 ὃ viv εἰς (ὃν ὑμεῖς).

Eur. Herachd. 21 προτιμῶν (προτείνων).

N,H. Vide Porson on Hecuba 2.

N, A. Aesch. Eum. 789 γένωμαι (γελῶμαι). Eur. Lon 162 κύκλος
(κύκνος).

v,u. Lymn to Hermes 55 ἧντε (nite). Eur. Bacch. 129 ἐν ἄσμασι
(εὐάσμασι). :

ἕξ, τι. Cf. Dawes, Miscellanea Critica, p. 472: Cobet, V. L. p. 120.
Aristoph. Ach. 1062 ἀξία (αἰτία). Xen. Cyn 111. 1. 21 οὐκ
ἐξημπέδου (οὐκέτι ἠμπέδου).

Π, Γ. Aesch. Cho. 835 λυπρᾶς (Avypas).

n, ΙΓ, Eur. Cycl. 571 σιγῶντα (σπῶντα).

Π,Τ. Eur. Phoen. 1262 καὶ τἄθλα (κάπαθλα). Aesch. Ag. 468
ὑπερκότως (ὑπερκόπως).

Π, ΤΙ. Plat. Rep. 581 D ποιώμεθα (τί οἰώμεθα).

TT, ΠΤ. Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 6. 3 ψήχουσι μὲν τὸν χρῶτα, ὀρύτ-
TOVGL δὲ τὴν σάρκα φαρμάκοις (θρύπτουσι).

T, Y. Hesychius, 5.0. ὑρεῖ, φοβεῖται (τρεῖ).

τι Ψ (+). Alexis (Kock 351) τὸν ὀψοποιὸν σκευάσαι χρηστῶς μόνον

160 EMENDATION

δεῖ τοῦτον (τοὔψον). Menander (Kock 618) τί σαυτὸν ἀδικῶν τὴν
ψυχὴν (τύχην) καταιτιᾷ; This form of ψ justifies the emenda-
tion ὄψις for δησ Ae in Aristot. Poet. 145622(+1=H). Cf.
Porson on Medea 553.
w,o. Due to pronunciation, e.g. Eur. Hel. 1487 ὁπόταν ai (ὦ πταναΐ).
id. Bacchae 802 ὅταν (ὦ τἂν). Aristoph. Lys. 281 ὅμως (ὠμῶς).
(ὁ) In Latin.

For interchanges found in Inscrr. v. Ἐν, Schneider, Dialectae Latinae priscae et
Faliscae exempla selecta, 1886. For the capital script v. W. Studemund’s Index to
his transcription of the Ambrosianus of Plautus (1889). A useful list illustrating
minuscule changes will be found in M. Ihm, Swefonius, i, p. xxxix sq.

A, ΣΧ. ara (arx) Ov. Fast. i. 245. lana (lanx) Liv. xl. 59. 8.
ea parte (ex parte) ib. x. 42. 3. silua (si lux) una retro
phylaceida rettulit umbram Stat. Siu. v. 3. 273.

a, co. uelleq tot OG, i.e. uelleq cot, a corruption of welle
queat Catull. 75. 3.

a,ec. senectum (senatum) Suet. D. Aug. 94. 3.

B, R. reliquorum V: belli quorum D, Cic. Phil. xiii. 2. In
Pro Font. 36, Clark emends to ¢bellt) reliquias.

B,S. inanibus (i.e. INANIB.) sententiis Suet. 1), Aug. 86. 3 (tnanis
Gronovius). The SCT.de Bacch. has the mistake sAcANAL.

B, V. laui hodie et ambulaui paulum, cz: paulo plus sumpsi
(cibi) Fronto, v. 15 (due to pronunciation).

C,G. Germanorum (Cenomanorum) Liv. v. 35. 1. qui coissent
ope (qui eguissent) ib. xxi, 52. 8. uincitur (cingitur) Plin.
Epp. ii. 17. 15. longo (loco) Suet. D. Aug. 45. 3.

c,e. et gemitum formaque ac uoce meretur (aeuoque) Stat.
Silu, ii. 1. 178. deuersorio loco . . . cesserit (deuersoriolo
eo) Suet. D. Lu, 72: 1.

c,t. curuatur (turbatur) Plin. Epp. ix. 26. 4. arces (artes) Liv.
ΧΙ, 47. 4. omnes isti qui recto uiuunt (retro) Sen. Epp.
122.18. This is an uncial as well as a later confusion.

E, F. cum ea tu (fatu) Plaut. Amph. 906. pulueris ericei (i. e.
aericei=Africei) Catull. 61. 206. flatus (elatus) Suet. Mero
37. 3, helped by the following word tnflatusque.

EMENDATION 161

E, T. iusto die se non dicturum (ius eo die) Liv. iii. 46. 3.

F, T, Ρ. efflueris (et fueris) Lucr. vi. 800. sed expertae polis
spectataeque Romanorum fidei credere (toties) Liv. xxxv.
49.12. epulis in multa pericula discoctis (fericula) Sen. Epp.
122.3. Theconfusion of F and P is common in manuscripts
copied from the insular script, e.g. Vitruv. ix. 8. 3 where
the Harl. reads confressione for compressione. In uncials, ct.
Lucan ix. 1048 qui tibi plenidus (qui tibi flendus).

f,s. femina (semina) Lucr. ii. 497. sucus (fucus) ib. 11. 683 ;

cf. Suet. Domit. 8. 1 semper fusoriis ΠΟ : semper suasoriis
Il? : se persuasorlis ST (se perfusoriis).

G,O H,K H,WN are all common in capital script.

I, P i, p especially when preceded by w or m; e.g. corruitum
(corruptum) Plaut. 777m. 116.

I, T i, t. corpora strata tacebant (iacebant) Lucr. vi. 1265.
potentiae, quae honoris causa ad eum deferretur, non uf ab
eo occuparetur (ui). Vell. Pat. ii. 29. 3.

1,1, 1,1. cum omnium mazorum suorum insigniis se in forum
proiecit (malorum) Liv. ii. 23. 3; cf. Munro, cr. n. on
Lucr. i. 349. Especially common in manuscripts copied
from Visigothic and Beneventan originals, where a long
zis used initially to represent the vowel z and medially (e.g.
elus) to represent semivocalic 7; vide E. A. Loew, Studia
Palaeographica, Munich, 1910, pp. 13 sqq.

L,T 1,t. pars melhor senatus ad meliora responsum trahere
(mitior) Liv. viii. 21. 6 facile argenti pondus (facti) Q. Curt.
11: 1.5. τὸ;

M,N,IN m,n, ia, αἱ. tela in domum Maelii conferri eumque
contiones domi habere (coitiones) Liv. iv. 13. 9. nobiliorem
(mobiliorem) ib. x. 25. 10. accipiet Capitolium non 17117711005
currus nec falsae simulacra uictoriae (mimicos) Plin. Pan. 16.
intro euntes (nitro euntes) Sen. JV. Q. ili. 24. 4.

n,u. leuiter (leniter) Liv. ili, 50. 12. non solitudinem illi
nouiter insederant (non iter) Plin. Pan. 34.

473 M

162 EMENDATION

n,r uncommon; v. Ihm, Svet. i, p. xlvii. gerantur (genantur)
Lucr. iv. 143. uini (uiri) ib. vi. 805.

O,Q. ove for 10vE Verg. G. iii. 35, avis for ovis Plaut. Pers.
EFS:

P,C p,c. petere (cetera) Lucr. iv. 590. scatium (spatium) ib.
i. 988. PLAVDvNT for CLAVDvNT is given by R in Verg.
Aen. vi. 139. punctis (cunctis) Manil. v. 706. Cassius
quidam Carmensis (Parmensis) Suet. D. Aug. 4. 2. This
error must have been common in the early capital hands
with an open P, e.g. the poem on Actium (a.D. 79).

P,R. paras (raras) Liv. xxiv. 2. 9. impetrarat (impetrabat) Cic.
ad Att. i. 16. 4. rutat (putat) Luc. iv.693. In Ammian. xx.
3. I secuturos thecanno VM: /or secuto post haec anno ; the
original error must have been secuforos, with the confusion
of P and R common in reading the insular script.

p,u. aues (apes) Varro, R. A. iii. 2. 11. paulum (altered from
pauiu, a corruption of nauium) Liv. xxi. 61. 4. Est ubi
diuellat somnos minus inuida cura (depellat in some codd.)

Hor. £pp. 1; τὸ: 18:

r,n in insular hands, e.g. Vitruv. ii. 8. 17 contigrationem in G
for contignationem.

(2) Misinterpretation of Contractions and Symbols.

Bast, ‘Commentatio Palaeographica’ (in Schaefer’s Gregorius Corinthius)
1811; E.M. Thompson, Jnt. to Gk. and Lat. Palaeography, pp. 75-90; Traube,
Nomina Sacra, 1907; Lindsay, Contractions in Early Latin Minuscule Manuscripts,
1908 (a convenient summary of this is given in Karl Krumbacher, Populdare
Aufsdtze, pp. 310 sqq., and more shortly by Lindsay, The Year's Work in
Cl. Studies, 1908, p. 119); T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manu-
scripts, 1889; Dougan, Circ. Tusc. p. xlvi; F. Marx, ad Herenn. p. 26.

Contractions are of two kinds: (1) literal and syllabic con-
tractions, where the word is shortened by the omission of some
of the letters of which it consists; (2) tachygrams, where a
shorthand sign is substituted for the whole word or a part of it.

The study of contractions has gained in importance from the

researches of Ludwig Traube who, working upon the suggestions

: EMENDATION 163

of Maunde Thompson and others, has shown convincingly the
value of historical investigation. Such investigations may be
the means of throwing light not only on textual corruptions, but
also on the ancestry of manuscripts. It has long been recog-
nized that the earliest method of contraction is to leave out the
end of a word and to write one or more only of the initial letters
or syllables, followed by a full stop in Latin or with the last
letter above the line in Greek: e.g. D.=deus, DOM.=dominus,
K. = Κύριος, tap? = παρθένος--- ἃ method which Chassant long ago
termed ‘suspension’. Beside this system is another in which
the middle of a word is left out and the beginning and end only
given, with a bar drawn above them, e. g. DS = deus, DNS = doni-
nus, KC=Kvpws. Traube would confine the term ‘ contraction’ to
this class. They are here called ‘head-and-tail’ contractions.
Of these two methods the first is the earliest ; the second is not
found in Latin manuscripts till the influence of Christianity
had become predominant. It is used by the Christians as
a means of denoting the sacred names and terms that were
constantly recurring in sacred texts or in theological works ;
e.g. Deus, Christus, Spiritus ; and was by degrees extended to
words outside the sacred vocabulary. In its origin it is derived
from the reverent Hebrew custom of never writing the name of
the Deity in full, but always by means of the mystic tetragram.
This custom was imitated by the Greek translators of the Bible,
who introduced such head-and-tail contractions as 0C=eds,
avov = ἀνθρώπων, πνα = πνεῦμα, and from them it has passed to
the early Latin translators. These head-and-tail contractions
invade the texts of profane Latin writers about the sixth
century. In Greek lands, however, owing to the conservatism
of scribes, they remain confined to ecclesiastical and kindred
writings (e. g. treatises on magic, &c., which were influenced by
Jewish learning) till the ninth century, when the revival of the
ancient literature which is associated with the names of Arethas
and Photius took place.

In accordance with these observations Traube argues that
the codex Romanus of Vergil cannot be older than the sixth

M 2

164 EMENDATION

century, since it gives the contraction DS for deus in Ec. i. 9.’
The word nostri is written ἢ in the half uncials of the sixth
century. Two manuscripts belonging to the a-group in
Caesar’s Gallic War seem to postulate an archetype of the sixth
century, since they constantly mistranscribe this symbol as mm,
nist, or nihil, A wider knowledge of the history of contractions
will doubtless rule out a number of rash emendations. Traube’s
rule, for instance, would not allow us to assume a contraction
such as avor (i.e. ἀνθρώπων) as a basis for the emendation adAws
in a manuscript older than the ninth century.

It is impossible in the present work to give a complete list of
even the commoner contractions in Latin and Greek, and the
lists given below must only be taken to illustrate some of the
confusions that are possible. The list of Greek contractions
which follows is taken chiefly from Venetus 474 of Aristophanes,
eleventh century.

(a) Contractions in Greek Manuscripts.

Aesch. Eum. 567 ἥ 7 οὖν διάτορος Τυρσηνική. It has been pro-
posed to emend this by assuming that οὖν is a corruption of
the compendium for οὐρανός, e.g. εἰς οὐρανὸν δὲ diatopos. But
the suggestion has not been universally accepted.

Plato, Phileb. 23 Ὁ εἰμὶ δ᾽, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐγὼ γελοῖός τις tikavest. The
true reading is ἄνθρωπος: ισ has been corrupted to wx by
dittography, and the compendium ayos for ἄνθρωπος misunder-
stood. Cf. Cobet, V.L. p. 14.

Eur. lon 588 πέρι (πάτερ). ibid. 1304 πρὶ γῆς (πατρικῆς). Phoen.
1038 ἄλλος ἄλλον (ἄλλος GAN’).

Isaeus viii. 42 φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα] ἐκείνῳ δέδωκε. An insertion
of a marginal note which probably was originally χωρία
᾿Αττικῆς.

1 Traube’s conclusion in this particular case is not necessarily right but his
argument is legitimate. The editor of the Vatican facsimile of the Romanus .
maintains that such contractions must have been common in the sixth century,
as can be seen from the Taurinensis-Ambrosianus of Cassiodorus, They might
therefore well have been used sporadically a century earlier.

Car) wig e rome
(«) Guar - bx mare
TP® - tpayeids

env) Ὁ

rupuseted ἔαζει by

ἡ (ὦ) As

Cew) ho up = Kerrey

se (2) GE = τὴν πέραν

7 (Je) TAMA AN > = TaMnyvale-

(τε)

=

' ‘
τοῦ Τοτε

) CURVES

ne) δ) μόη!ε Ξ- Re OWE

ROH foo "AO nvalo$

3 (245) woe examen) Ξ

MApES KE υασμένους

σι οὐ /
€és ) τιν΄ = τινές

=: ἀνθρω τος

| eae ~S 7
ουνον = οὐρανόν
c rw mS ͵
ἔων) XT γι σα = χιτωνίσκον
A =
fe = mov

2 / . > !
Eas) ONE «τειν - XTEK reins

on

T = τὴν. Also ( (5) <A (ev)
wr Carlin merutinle Aarts. These ove

Crbractions ως CK. AGs.

(B)CURVES (ων)

7: ΐ ,

oS Cs) ματειλη Bs = Poot CERN 5
e

cs

=

ὡς > Tee Te π᾿ πρ εἐτ-
- ovrws

9 (ory) dw κ fstee ἐσω Kparouy

mEpe he

Tow = TaperKouvros

Ἵ (-ais) 2 = Tas [abe = (- é5) uw! x cent}
9 U — a

~ CF) MYKT = νυκττωρ

v (-9v) T = Tov

(-o¥) SPY = Ἄπολλον
Ν
T = τον
x [ (CVLETTERS, &e.
1} TO = Tore , πὸ. - ποτε.
' Oo spre 6} μόν = μόγος
(-Tx) Senos Tw - ξεινδτατω.
4 eo as ES a’ Stag? ete
(05) κἄμ! = λάβοις ce per’ = vinns
Ε΄; (er) Bane er |.
esas = ek 0 1:.} aK = ἀκτὶς
aebev, 1 - κείμενα.
aeSY = ἄρθεν, κεῖ α i

pre (- Es) APKN' -
“Ἡράκλεις

ὃ

Ν,

al

(ov) τοι gr - Τοιοῦτος

- = Six

ae s

“Ὁ = E€ivac

x‘ ‘

7: Ξ Kelle

> Ket Te.

eS - ὅτι Sure Sizes

τ ͵

wy, me. = THe a

ἊΣ τὴ

} Ξ μέρα.

σ΄ = ἥλιος
‘Suspeas \ ConCen li σεις tn Caen.
σὰς He he Ke lett Cher
wile abner : £ J O* > - φασὶ
2 ,
X = χορος > Sone = τα πεῖν

4
eae = σπονδὴν

166 EMENDATION

Xenophon, Occon. v. 12 ἔτι δὲ ἡ γῆ tOéovoat . . . δικαιοσύνην
διδάσκει. (θσουσα Ξε θεὸς οὖσα.) In some manuscripts the
corruption has been emended to θέλουσα.

Athenaeus ii. 67 Ε ὀξὺ yap E: ὅτι yap C. The true reading
is ὀξύγαρον = ὀξύγαῤ.

Athenaeus viii. 367 B ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν σοι ταῦτα t, καλὲ ἄνθρωπε,"
συνεισευπορήσαμεν. The emendation of the strange phrase
καλὲ ἄνθρωπε to καλὲ Οὐλπιανέ, adopted by some editors,
assumes that ἄνθρωπε is an expansion of ave which was taken
for a compendium of ἄνθρωπος.

Galen v. 69. 16 (Kithn) ἐνίους μὲν ὀνώδεις +6 τὰς t+ φύσει (ὄντας).

ib. v. 83. 15 τῆς ὅλης ἡμέρας [ ὅτι] : where ὅτι has been intruded
through the similarity of the compendia for ὅτι and ἡμέρα
(v. supra 165).

Libanius iv, p. 252. 32 ὦ διάκονοι τυράννου,---ὑμεῖς μὲν ῴεσθέ pe
δεδεμένον ἄξειν---ἄπιτε δὲ tKev χερσίν". (κεναῖς χερσίν the com-
pendium xev” having been neglected.)

(ὁ) Contractions in Latin Manuscripts.

In Latin manuscripts contractions are derived from the
following sources :

(1) The old Roman system of simple ‘suspension’ used for
common names, titles, &c., on inscriptions and coins, e.g. C =
GAIvs. (2) The ποίας Tironianae,a system of tachygrams or
shorthand invented or improved by Cicero’s freedman, Tiro.
(3) The xotae turis, found in juristic handbooks. These are
borrowed in part from the two classes described, and in part are
a separate development: e.g. the use of the sign ’ for various
endings—c’ = cum, m’ =-mus; and the use of suprascript letters—
mm = mihi, 1 = modo.’ (4) The head-and-tail contractions de-
scribed above, p. 163.

In the continuous hands contractions are rare. They are
common in the insular hands where the separation of words is
fairly consistent. It has been suggested that the practice began
at the Irish monastery of Bobbioin Italy. Parchment was scarce,

1 Complete collection by Mommsen in Keil, Gramm. Lat. iv, pp. 267 sqq.

EMENDATION 167

and to save space the scribes adopted contractions from all the
sources mentioned above. In the later dissected hands, where
each word is written separately, contractions enter slowly at first
(e.g. in Caroline minuscules), then in increasing volume (e.g. in
so-called Lombardic), then in a flood (in Gothic), till they finally
all but disappear in the humanistic hands of the fifteenth century.

The following brief survey of some of the contractions in use
in the main Latin hands in which Latin texts have been pre-
served will serve to illustrate the problems of emendation which
arise from the wrong interpretation of contractions.

(1) CapiraL HanpDs. Cf. Ribbeck, Vergil, i. 260. The sur-
viving instances of these hands are thought to belong to the
period between the fourth and seventh centuries. The writing
is continuous, contractions are rare.

(a) Capitals elegans or quadrata, a large monumental hand.

(ὁ) Capitalis rustica, a smaller and rougher hand.

B. = bus, Q. = que. There are a number of compound letters
(contignationes) which give rise to errors; e.g. NS, NT, OS, TR,
VL, VN, VS. Hence such variants as:

Verg. Georg. ill. 433 torquens M: torquent P. Aen. xi. 667
transuerberat]| tranuerberat M.

(2) Unctats. The age of manuscripts in this hand is often
difficult to determine. It superseded the capital hands in the
fifth century and is still in use in the eighth century. Cf.
Wessely’s Codex Vindobonensis of Livy (facsimile); F.W. Shipley,
Certain sources of Corruption in Latin Manuscripts, 1904,
Pp: 54 566:

Contractions (save in juridical works) are few and simple as
in Capital hands:

(a) Suspensions: B.= bus, 9. = que, E= est, PR = praetor, COS =
consul, Ῥ. R.=populus Romanus. (ὁ) stroke over vowel=m or
more rarely 71, but only at the end of lines. The contractions
in Half-Uncials are very similar.

(3) INSULAR HANDs (scriptura Scottica, Saxonica, litterae tonsae),
i.e. Irish and Anglo-Saxon ; a peculiar type of the half-uncial
developed in the sixth century.

168 EMENDATION

The best account of the contractions will be found in Lindsay,
Contractions in Early Latin Minuscule Manuscripts, 1908. A
useful selection is given in De Vries, Album Palaeographicum, —
pp. XXV-XXvii, 1909.

A study of the system of contractions used in these manu-
scripts is of high importance, since books written in these
handwritings are often exemplars from which the Carolingian
scribes made their copies. Among the commonest tachygrams
derived in some cases from the ποίας Tironianae and notae
1715 are:

autem =H often confused with hoc, i.e. ἢ.

con =9. contra= 3 in early manuscripts. It was liable to be
confused with ews and also with a sign for -2s, -os.

eius = 3 often misinterpreted by later copyists.

enim = ++ derived from a nota iuris; sometimes confused with
the sign for autem (supra).

est=~or~. quae=q:.

et=7. esse = € (juristic).

The ordinary head-and-tail contractions are common, e.g. :
ds = deus, pr = pater, nto= numero.

Often the last letter in such contractions is suprascript :

th = mihi, p = post.

A number of small words are represented by the initial letter
or letters only with the bar of contraction drawn above them :

a=aut, C=cum, eti = etiam.

Some old Roman contractions remain, e.g. q: = que, b: = bus.

(4) CAROLINGIAN HANDS. Contractions are not common in
these hands. Most of them are in use also in Insular hands.

(a) Tachygraphical signs :
— or curve ~ suprascript=#; also -en, -er, as in
Lombardic ; 6. g. pat= pater.
-us, -ur are denoted by an apostrophe, e.g. ei’ =erus,
temperet’ = femperetur.
The Insular sign for -# = 2 (suprascript) is also used.
est= ~

EMENDATION 169

(ὁ) Other contractions :
é. or .€. = est, confused with ἃ = -ev.
ee, 66 =esse.
qd=quod. q: = quae.
ΞΞ el
ΒΞ Ὁ — pro. p=pri. p=prae.
qm or qnm = guoniam.
b., q:=-bus, -que.
Ordinary head-and-tail contractions ΠΤῚ Ξε nostri, &c.

Other tachygrams are in use later, e.g. the Tironian 7 Ξξ οἱ
and >= con.

(5) Lomparpic, i.e. the Beneventan and Monte Cassino hand: it
probably has no connexion with Lombardy, but is a calligraphic
development of the later Roman cursive. It reached its zenith
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Cf. H. Rostagno’s preface
to facsimile of the Laurentian codex of Tacitus, Avnals xi-xvi in
Sijthoff’s series, 1902.

(a) Tachygraphic signs :
;=-us, often hardly distinguishable from the second
sign for m below.
Ἢ or 2, suprascript = m final or medial.
— suprascript = ev, er final or medial.
2 suprascript = -wr.

(ὁ) Contractions of both kinds are common; e.g.

S— si, n= non.

dos= deos. fri = fratrt.
(ce) Der. p or p=prae.

p=pro. p’ = post.

f= sed, easily confused with the ligatures for sz and ἢ.

After the twelfth century, which saw the rise of the Gothic
hands, contractions of every sort enter into Western handwriting.
Liv. iii. 35. 9. The Vindobonensis reads—consulibus tantis-
simo (constantissimo).
ib. xxx. 42. 12 factionibus archinae, codd. rece. for factiont
Barcinae, i.e. wrongly divided as factionib. arcinae and mis-
interpreted.

170 EMENDATION

In these instances abbreviations have been wrongly assumed
by the scribes. In the following they have been wrongly in-

terpreted.

Cic. pro Archia ὃ 8 adsunt Heraclienses legati . . . qui hune
adscriptum Heracliensem (esse) dicunt (Heracliensé δα
dicunt).

ib. ὃ τι delatus est a Lucullo praetore consule [515 E] (pr
consule).

Cic. pro Sestio ὃ 127 quibus autem consistere . . . non liceat

(G has the compendium for hoc, a mistake for the insular
compendium for autem, v. supra).

Propertius ili. 7. 46 nil, nisi flere, potest DV: ubi flere NFL;
a confusion of 7% and 7.

Catullus 64. 120 portaret amorem OG, for pracoptarit, i.e.
poptarit > poptarit > portaret.

ib. 68. 16 iucundum cum aetas florida uer ageret, corrupted in
O (I. 49) to florida μέ ageret, i.e. 2 has been misinterpreted.

Manilius v. 49 Persida, misread as psida or psid’a appears as
per sidera.

ib. v. 738 respublica mundi MSS. respendere, respondere;
1.6. r.. p, has evidently been confused with some other con-
traction (? juristic) for respondere. (Cf. Keil, GL. iv, p. 299
RP = respondit.)

Germanicus, Arat. Phaen. 271 plurimulum acceptae prolis:
multum accepta epulis, Haupt. cpulis=eplis=prolis.

(3) Mistranscription through general resemblance.

Madvig, Adv. i, p. 19 (especially p. 25); Vollgraff, p. 28; Bywater, p. 15;
Tucker, Choephori, p. 1xxxvi.

Many of these errors are due at the outset to wrong com-
bination (cf. I. (4) 1177).

Aesch. Eum. 727 σύ τοι παλαιὰς tbacpovast καταφθίσας (διανομάς).

Aristoph. Thesm. 1047 ἰώ μοι μοίρας taveructet δαίμων (ἀτεγκτε).

Menander, FY. 402. 1 ἐπ᾽ Τἀμφοτέραν ivat (or dpdorepavw) ἡπί-

KAnpos ἣ καλὴ μέλλει καθευδήσειν (ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέραν piv’).

EMENDATION 171

Eur. Phoen. 538 τὸ γὰρ ἴσον νόμιμον ἀνθρώποις ἔφυ (μόνιμον).
Apollon. Vit. Aeschinis, § 9 ἐξέπεσεν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ὑπὸ τῶν
, Ν / Ν Ε , Ν 9 i“ > ’,
τριάκοντα καὶ στρατευόμενος καὶ εὐνοίας καὶ} ἀριστείων ἠξιώθη.
From Aeschin. Fals. Leg. 147 it is clear that the reading
must be στρατευόμενος ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ.

Among such confusions may be noted :--άὩἁθρόοι, ἄνθρωποι (Plato, Gorg. 490 B) ;
ἀντίπορος, ἀντίρροπος (Arrian, Anab. iv. 27. 3); ἀπόντων, ἁπάντων (Lys. xix. 51);
ἀσκοῦντας, ἀκούοντας (Xen. Cyr. lil. 3. 35); βασιλεῦσαι, βλακεῦσαι (Arrian, Anab.
ili. 6. 8) ; ἔθος, ἔθνος (Galen, 7. ψυχ. παθ. 14) 3; ἑκατοστός, εἰκοστός (Ath. 543 A);
ἐπιορκίαν, ἐπικουρίαν (Schol. Pind. Ol. xiii. 116); θάτερον, θέατρον (Plato, Laws
659 A); κνῆσις, κίνησις (Plato, Phileb. 46 D) ; ὁπλίτης, πολίτης (Lys. xiv. 9 and xv.
II); πάλιν, πόλιν, πάνυ, πολύ (Eur. Heracl, 933) ; πελάγιος, πλάγιος (Strabo iii.
167); ῥώμη, ὁρμή (Julian, Or. viii. 241 D) ; σκωλήκων, σκυλάκων (Galen, 7. ψυχ.
apapt. 87); τόπος, τρόπος (Lys. Xxxiii. 7).

It should be remembered that some of these confusions are
rendered easier by the environment in which they occur: e.g.
Plat. Lysis 212 Τοἰόμενοι οἴονται οὐκ ἀντιφιλεῖσθαι (οἱ μὲν. Here
οἱ μὲν has passed naturally into οἰόμενοι owing to the influence
of the following οἴονται. It would not necessarily follow that
the change would be equally convincing in a different en-
vironment.

Liv. xxi. 4. 6 cibi potionisque desiderio naturali, non woluntate

modus finitus (uoluptate ; cf. Plin. Eff. ii. 17. 24).

ib. xxi. 40. 9 membra forrida gelu (torpida; cf. xxi. 58. 9).

Valerius Max. ix. 12 Eat. 8 unius grani pertinacior in aridis

faucibus wmor absumpsit (mora).

Valerius, Res Gest. Alex. i. 30 (Kuebler, p. 33. 4) quae etiam

tunc animo wo/untas indidem proficiscitur (uolutans).

Seneca, NV. Q. iii. 18. 1 nihil . . . mullo expirante illo formo-

sius . . . rubor primum, deinde pallor subfunditur, guam
aeque uariantur (squamaeque).

Cf, also ciuis, cuius (Sen. Herc. Oet. 1185) ; fortiter, ferociter (Liv. iii. 47. 2);
ingenita, ingentia (Q. Curt. v. 6. 9); iustius, istius (ib. v. 5. 2); manibus,
manubiis (Liv. xxxlii. 47. 3); nouus, bonus (Sen. Epp. 118. 7) ; persequeretur,
per se quaereretur (Liv. xl. 12. 11); recipere, reciperare (Cic. Diwinatio in Ο. Ο,
§ 72); tristis, tritus (Stat. Theb. ii. 366).

172 EMENDATION

Cf. Dr. Johnson’s emendation, Boswell (ed. Hill), v. 214,
‘The Devil answers even in engines’ (ever in enigmas). Jane
Austen, Northanger Abbey, ch. xxvi, ‘By ten o’clock the chaise-—
and-four conveyed the ‘wo from the abbey, &c.’ As it is clear
from the context that the party must have consisted of three,
Dr. Verrall has suggested that the reading should be altered to
trio. Shelley, Ariel to Miranda, ‘The artist who this dol
wrought’ (viol). Keats’ Sonnet xii, ‘Pink robes and wavy hair
and diamond jar’ (tiar). Zzmes, Aug. 14, 1906, ‘One doctor
described his case as that of miniature development’ (immature).
ib. Nov. 30, 1912, p. 3, ‘The crown lays no claim to /umbago
found in lands sold by it prior to rgo1’ (plumbago).

(4) (2) Wrong combination or separation, often leading to
‘ghost-words’ and to false accommodation (cf. I (5) 7/ra).
(ὁ) Wrong punctuation.

(a) Wrong combination or separation.

Madvig, Adv. i, p. 26 ; Hagen, pp. 76-8; Owen, Ovid, Tristia, p. xxxvii; Beer,
Spicileg. Iuv., Ὁ. 13; Vollgraff, p. 15; Marquardt, Galen, i, p. xxxv}; Hosius,
Lucan, pp. viii 544.

Such errors are often due to an archetype written in con-
tinuous script. v. Christ, Arist. Metaphys., p. vii; Heraeus,
Ouaest. Crit. § τ.

Aesch. F7. 275 ἐρῳδιὸς yap ὑψόθεν ποτώμενος, tov θ᾽ ὡς ἔπληξεν,

ἡ δ᾽ υἱὸς χειλώμασιν" (ὄνθῳ σε πλήξει νηδύος κενώμασιν).

Anaxilas, F7. 22. 14 (Kock) tés τὰ πολλά γ᾽ εἰσὶ ταύτης" (ὥστ᾽

ἀπαλλαγεῖσι ταύτης).

Soph. Ajax 1056 ὡς ἐλοιδόρει (ὡς ἕλοι δορί).

Eur. 1. 4. 1115 ἀκανθεών τις εἴπαθ᾽ of καταστένει (ἃ κἂν θεῶν τις,

εἰ πάθοι, καταστένοι).

Anaxandrides F%. 49 (Kock) ὅτι εἴμ᾽ ἀλαζὼν τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιτιμᾷς Τἀλλά

τινι καὶ} γὰρ αὕτη τὰς τέχνας πάσας πολύ (ἀλλὰ τί: νικᾷ yap).

Theocrit. 28. 24 κῆνο γάρ τις ἐρεῖ trw ἸΠοσείδων ot (τὦπος ἰδών σ᾽).

Plutarch, Won posse suauiter, 1102 Β καὶ θύων μὲν ὡς μαγείρῳ

παρέστηκε τῷ ἱερεῖ σφάττοντι, θύσας δ᾽ ἄπεισι λέγων tro μὲν

ἀνδρεῖον} ἔθυον οὐ προσέχουσιν οὐδέν μοι θεοῖς (τὸ Μενάνδρειον).

EMENDATION 173

Galen, v. 14. 8 (Kithn) pd ἂν ἐν ἔθνεσι τοῖς καλῶς τεθραμμένοις
(L has ἔθνεσι καλῶς τοῖς τεθρ. which points to ἐν ἔθεσι καλ-
λίστοις τεθρ.).

Plaut. Amph. 151 adest ferit (adeste erit, i.e. a wrong separa-
tion together with confusion of Ε and F).

Verg. Aen. ix. 716 Inarime, from misunderstanding εἰν
᾿Αρίμοις in Lhad ii. 783.

Liv. xxxiv. 57. 8 aut ex formula iuris antiqui aut ex partis
utriusque commodo. (This the right reading is preserved
in the Moguntinus. The Palatint have: aut ex eo simula,
emended by the inferior manuscripts to ex aequo simul.)

Sen. Epp. 22. 15 illa (natura) nobis conqueri (nobiscum
queri).

Sen. Epp. 89. 4 philosophia unde dicta sit apparet: ipso enim
nomine fatetur. guidam et sapientiam ita quidam finierunt
etc. (fatetur quid amet. Sapientiam).

Tac. Ann, xiii. 25 ula temptantem (ui attemptantem).

Val. Max. ii. 3. 3 ideoque auctori eius Nauio honos adhuc est
habitus (a duce est).

Cf. Shakespeare, Henry V, rv. iii. 104, ‘Mark then abounding
valour in our English’ (? a bounding, Theobald); A Midsummer
Night's Dream, iv. i. 38, ‘Fairies, be gone and be always away’
(all ways); Fichard IIT, τἀν. iv. 324, ‘ Advantaging their loan with
interest Oftentimes double gain of happiness’ (Of ten times).
Mr. H. Bradley informs me that the ghost-word ‘litie’ was once
sent in to the Oxford Dictionary supported by the quotation,
‘the barbarity and tnside litte of the Turks’ (infidelity).

(6) Wrong punctuation, often leading in Greek to the insertion
of particles such as γάρ, καί, δέ.

F. A. Wolf laid special stress on punctuation. ‘Da codicem probe inter-
punctum, commentariiiusti uicem habebit’ (Prolegomena ch.i). Vahlen, Opusc.
i, 103-20.

Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1122» 25 ἄξια yap δεῖ τούτων εἶναι καὶ μὴ μόνον τῷ

ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ποιοῦντι πρέπειν. .. πρέπει δὲ [Kal] οἷς τοιαῦτα

προὐπάρχει κτλ., Where the καί has been inserted through

174 EMENDATION

failure to observe that the three lines in the text between
πρέπειν and πρέπει are a parenthesis, vid. Bywater, Contribu-
tions ad loc. and cf. 1166* το.

Plaut. Epid. 352-3 (v. 353 is rejected by some edd., but
should be retained with altered punctuation) :

nam leno omne argentum apstulit pro fidicina (ego resolui,
manibus his denumeraui) pater suam natam quam esse credit.

Plaut. 7 γι, 389 ecce autem (in benignitate hoc repperi)
negotium,

Cf. Selden, Table Talk (ed. Reynolds), p. 47, s.v. House of
Commons: ‘The House of Commons is called the Lower House
in twenty acts of Parliament: but what are twenty acts of Parlia-
ment amongst friends ?’ Here amongst friends is an exclamation
in parenthesis such as Selden uses elsewhere, e.g. pp. 73, 74, εἴ.
the contemporary memoirs of Sir J. Reresby, ed. 1904, p. 283:
‘The Lord Treasurer and others drank themselves into that
state of frenzy that (amongst friends) it was whispered that they
had stripped into their shirts, &c.’! Gray, Elegy:

‘For, who to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
This pleasing anxious being e’er resigned,’

where the commas destroy the construction, which surely is
‘who resigned this anxious being as a prey to forgetfulness’.

(5) Assimilation of Words and of Terminations.

Madvig, Adv. i, p. 53; Wyse, Isaeus, p. xxxix; J. B. Mayor, Clement of
Alexandria, p. \xxiv; J. B. Mayor, De Nat. Deorum, i, p.1xi; Friedrich, Catullus,
Ρ. 139; 5. G. Owen, Ovid, Tristia, p. xxvii; Marquardt, Galen, i, p. Xxxviii.

This error like those arising from wrong combination and
separation often leads to ‘accommodation of construction’, i.e.
an attempt is made to readjust the construction of the sentence
by further alterations. Cf. Dougan, Cic. Tusc. p. liv.

Aristoph. Vesp. 544 θαλλοφύροι καλοίμεθ᾽ dv

τωμοσιῶν κελύφη

1 T owe this reference to the Rev. H. E, Ὁ, Blakiston.

Le
7

EMENDATION 175

for καλούμεθ᾽, ἀντωμοσιῶν x. Here the scribe’s eye has wan-
dered to the syllable ἀν- which he has hastily taken for the
particle ay. The verb has been put in the optative in order
to suit the construction of ay.

Aristot. Rhet. 1378 2 τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος (So Δ’ for τὴν ἀπὸ owing
to the influence of the following τῆς).

Dio Chrys. Or. Ixiv, p. 341 (ἡ τύχη δέδωκε) Σωκράτει φρόνησιν,
᾿Αριστείδει δικαιοσύνην, Λακεδαιμονίοις Ἰτὴν ᾿Αθηναίων! θάλασσαν
(Λακεδ. γῆν, ᾿Αθηναίοις θάλ.).

Pausanias x. 24. 4 θεάσαιο ἂν... Τἔστιν ἀνέφηνεν ὃ πτολέμων

. ὃ ἱερεὺς ἀπέκτεινεν (cod. Angelicus for ἑστίαν ἐφ᾽ ἣ Neo-
πτόλεμον). Here the word πτολέμων has been given a parti-
cipial ending in order to accommodate it to the preceding 6.

Galen, v. 38. 17 (Kiihn) καὶ τὰ μὲν (παιδία) φιλόπονα . . . τὰ δ᾽
ἀμελῆ . .. ἔνια μὲν [ἐπὶ τῷ χαίρειν erawotvpevat ... ἔνια δὲ
«
ee r , 6 52. 39 was a 9 a θ
ἐπὶ τῷ καταγιγνώσκεσθαι. . . αἰδούμενα (ἐπὶ τῷ ἐπαινεῖσθαι

χαίροντα. The participle ἐπαινούμενα has been imported
through false accommodation to the following participle
aidovpeva.

Varro, de Ling. Lat. vii. 64 a quo Accius ait personas distortas
oribus deformis miriones (personas distortis oribus de-
formis).

Liv. iii. 50. 6 sibi uitam filiae suae cariorem fuisse (sua).

Sen. de Trang. 16. 2 uide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et
si fortes fuerunt ipsorum illos animos desidera (animo, 1. e.
‘we ought to lament the loss of brave men with the same
bravery which they themselves have shown’).

Cf. Kingsley, Andromeda :

‘But the boy still lingered around her,
Loath like a boy to forgo her, and waken the cliffs with his
laughter’ (waken’d).

‘Rule Britannia, B. vw/es the waves,’ ἄς. This is now the vul-
gate reading which is found even in Palgrave’s Golden Treasury.
The right version is ‘ B. rule the waves’, the verb having been
adjusted in tense to the following statement.

176 EMENDATION

(6) Transposition: (a) of Letters and Syllables especially
Terminations (Anagrammatism, Metathesis). (ὁ) Of
Words and Passages.

(a) Transposition of Letters and Syllables.

Madvig, Adv. i, p. 50; Schubart, p. 91; Wyse, Isaeus, p. xli; Hagen, p. 88;
Housman, Manilius I, p. liv; Richards, Xenophon and Others, p. 302.

This error is especially common in the transcription of proper
names: e.g. Κίμωνος, Μίκωνος (Pausanias iii. 12), Θεσσαλίας, θαλασ-
σίας (ib. vil. 2). It is often due to general resemblance (cf. supra
I (3)). But it is no doubt also due, as Schubart suggests, to
a faulty pronunciation by mouths no longer familiar with the
sounds of the older language. This does not imply that the
scribes wrote to dictation, but only that just as the pronunciation
of familiar words would be present to their minds when they
wrote, so when the word was unfamiliar they attempted in-
stinctively to find a pronunciation for it, and the pronunciation
they found influenced what they wrote: e.g. χείμαρρος, μείχαρρος :
θάψαι, ψάθαι.

Aristoph. Ach. 91 ἥκοντες ἄγομεν contra metrum R for ἄγοντες

ἥκομεν.

Plat. Rep. 437 Ὁ ἐν ὀλίγῳ (ἑνὶ λόγῳ).

Lucian, Timon 57 τί ἀγανακτεῖς Gyabé Ττίμων! παρακέκρουσμαί σε

(μῶν τι).
Cic. pro Muren. § 49 certe ipsi candidatorum obscurior εἰ wideri
solet (creta ipsa . . . obscurior euadere solet).

Cf. Gaskell, Cranford, ch. xiv, ‘a little of the cold /orn sliced
and fried’ (the context requires ‘cold /ion’).

(ὁ) Transposition of Words and Passages.

(a) In Poetry. The transposition of words is common here,
the reason being, as W. Headlam shows (C. R. 1902, pp. 243 544.),
that the scribes tend to write the words in the order of prose.

Eur. 1. A. 396 tra δ᾽ dy’ οὐκ! ἀποκτενῶ ᾿γὼ τέκνα (so C for τἀμὰ

δ᾽ οὐκ).

Aristoph. ἔφ. 231: R has ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους γὰρ Τοὐδεὶς αὐτὸν ἤθελεν

(αὐτὸν οὐδείς),

EMENDATION Τὴ

id. Plutus 715 οὐκ ὀλίγας εἶχε (εἶχεν οὐκ ὀλίγας), cf. Eccl. 227.

Lucret. v. 331 natura mundist (naturast mundi).

ib. 1198 ulla welatumst (ullast uelatum).

The transposition of passages in poetry is due to damage
inflicted on the archetype and to the various causes of transcrip-
tional error such as homoeoteleuton. The passages omitted are
often noted in the margin by the corrector, and are inserted out
of place by some subsequent copyist. The loose construction o
poetry (especially of elegiac poetry, where each distich tends to
be a complete thought in itself) does not always betray the
disturbance which has taken place, and if the text depends
ultimately upon a single manuscript, such transpositions may
easily become part of the tradition. Instances of this will be
found passim in Lucretius and Propertius. Cf. Postgate, C. Δ,
1902, p. 306.

(8) In Prose the transposition of Words is due often (τ) to the
unwillingness of scribes to insert a word or phrase in its proper
place when they have omitted or anticipated it by accident. In
order not to deface the page they often write the missing words
later. Cf. G. Hermann, Opusc. iii. 104; Madvig, Adv. i. 46;
Lehrs, Aristarchus, p. 354; Peterson, Codex Cluntacensis, p. XV1.
(2) Occasionally words implying some well-known antithesis are
interchanged. Cf. Marquardt, Galen, i, p. xxxviil.

Isaeus, xi. 21 Ἰτὸν μὲν νικᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ ἡττᾶν} (τὸν μὲν ἡττᾶσθαι,

τὸν δὲ νικᾶν).

Galen, v. 40. 12 (Kithn) ἐγὼ τοίνυν ὅπως μὲν τὴν φύσιν ἔχω, οὐκ ἔχω
Ἐγνῶναι!. τὸ γὰρ ἑαυτὸν {φάναι} χαλεπόν ἐστι, Where γνῶναι
and φάναι have been interchanged.

The transposition of Passages in prose is rarer since the
argument or narrative cannot often be disturbed without exciting
the attention of the reader. Such dislocations have sometimes
become permanent when they involve a page or a whole section
of the text: e.g.

Xen. Anab. vi. 3. 14 546.

Galen, Hipp. περὶ ἄρθρων, c. 45 (vol. ii, p. 171. 13, Ktihlwein).

473 N

178 EMENDATION

{The following instances were pointed out to me by Mr. I.
Bywater :

Diog. Laert. i. 86 καὶ τὸ μὲν ἰσχυρὸν γενέσθαι τῆς φύσεως ἔργον"᾿
τὸ δὲ λέγειν δύνασθαι τὰ συμφέροντα τῇ πατρίδι ψυχῆς ἴδιον καὶ φρονή-
σεως. εὐπορίαν δὲ χρημάτων πολλοῖς καὶ διὰ τύχην περιγίνεσθαι.

So the manuscripts and editions of Diogenes. But the Versio
Antiqua (of which fragments survive in Walter Burley and Hiere-
mias Judex) had here: ‘Fortem esse opus nature est; copiam
habere pecuniarum opus fortune est; posse autem fari congrua
patrie anime et sapientie proprium est.’

It is clear that in the existing Greek text the three clauses
should be read in the order 1, 3, 2, as in the Version.

Philo, De “ΠΟΥ. mundi, Ὁ. 492. το, ed. Mangey. After ἄδεκτον
ἔσται come two blocks of text:

(1) ὑποστῆναι to συνεπιγραψάμενος (p. 492. 10 to 497. 8).

(2) κατὰ τὸ παντελές 10 τὸ μηδὲ χρόνον (p. 497. 8 to 502. 34).

Bernays transposed these two blocks, putting the second first,
so as to follow immediately after ἄδεκτον ἔσται, on the assumption
that the order of the leaves in the original manuscript has got
disturbed. See his Gesammelte Abhandl. i, p. 283, and his paper
read in 1876 before the Berlin Academy where the restored text
is printed in full.

Priscianus Lydus, ed. Berol, p. 100. 16. After mzultitudo come
two blocks of text:

(1) quaedam aridae /o sunt per quos (p. 100. 16 to 102. 5).

(2) non sunt contrarii /o aestimatum eo quod (p. 102. 5 to
103. 20).

Two inferior manuscripts (CM) transpose these two blocks of
text, making zon sunt contrarit (&c.) follow immediately after
multitudo (p. 100. 6). There must have been something wrong
with the leaves of the immediate archetype of CM.|

A startling instance of transposition which passed unnoticed
by the author himself and generations of readers is to be seen
in Kant’s Prolegomena, where H. Vaihinger’s transposition of
three pages from ὃ 4 to ὃ 2 is now accepted.

Editors have often been unwilling to assume the transposition

EMENDATION 179

of smaller passages in prose. But as Brinkmann has shown in
Rhein. Mus. 1902, pp. 481 sqq., such an assumption is often
justified, From the earliest times’ scribes have been in the
habit of marking an omission that they have noticed by writing
the omitted words in the upper or lower margin of the page and
attaching them to the nearest ‘catchword’ in the text. Such
a catchword is usually the word which follows the omission.
Sometimes, however, it is the word which immediately pre-
eedes -.€.2-

Iamblichus, Protrept. ch. 9 ἐρωτηθέντα, τίνος ἂν ἕνεκα ἕλοιτο
γενέσθαι τις καὶ ζῆν, ἀποκρίνασθαι... ὡς τοῦ θεάσασθαι τὰ περὶ τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ περὶ αὐτὸν ἄστρα κτλ., Where a parallel passage shows
that the reading should be θεάσασθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ {τὰ περὶ
αὐτὸν ἄστρα, i.e. the word τὰ was found by some scribe to be
omitted and he inserted it in the margin before its catchword περὶ
and the words τὰ περὶ have been inserted in the wrong place in
the text.

/“Suidas gives the list of Phrynichus’ comedies as: ᾿Εφιάλτης,
Kovvos, Κρόνος, Κωμασταί, Σάτυροι, Tpaywoot ἢ ᾿Απελεύθεροι, Μονότρο-
πος, Μοῦσαι, Μύστης, ΠῸΟοάστριαι, Σάτυροι. Other evidence attributes
only ten plays to this author. Either therefore we must assume
that he wrote two plays with the title Σάτυροι (which is improb-
able) or that Movérpovos . . . Ποάστριαι had been omitted and
were inserted in the margin before their proper catchword
Σάτυροι. As the list is alphabetical this assumption is almost
a certainty.

Athenaeus xi. 505 F ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ δύναται ἸΤάραλος καὶ Ξάνθιππος
οἱ Περικλέους υἱοὶ [τελευτήσαντες τῷ λοιμῷ ] ἸΠρωταγόρᾳ διαλέγεσθαι, ὅτε
{τὸν δεύτερον ἐπεδήμησε ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις, οἱ ἔτι πρότερον τελευτήσαντες
{τῷ λοιμῷ). Here the first τελευτήσαντες τῷ λοιμῷ is Out Of place
and the error has obviously arisen from the desire of the scribe
to insert τῷ λοιμῷ after the second τελευτήσαντες. As τῷ λοιμῷ
ends the sentence it was inserted in the margin after the catch-

1 Cf, Simplicius #7 Categ. Kalbfleisch, p. 88. 24 δισσογραφία τις ἐν τούτοις συνέβη"
οὐδὲν yap "Ἀριστοτέλης €k περιττοῦ τοῖς λόγοις προστίθησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως ἔξω παραγεγ-
ραμμένης τῆς ἄλλης γραφῆς οἱ γράφοντες τὰ δύο εἰς τὸ ἐδάφιον (the text) ἐνέγραψαν.

Ν 2

180 EMENDATION

word τελευτήσαντες and a subsequent scribe has copied the
passage in the wrong place.
For similar transpositions in Livy see Conway and Walters,

CO £050, Pp. 271; τοῦτ pa

(7) Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and vice versa.

Hagen, p. 84.

Numberless instances will be found in the critical editions of
writers such as Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Seneca, Nat. Quaest.,
and Macrobius.

Cic. Ad Att. xvi. 11. I ex quo ante ipsa posuisti (ἄνθη).

Martial, 1.10. Spect. xxi. 8 facta ita pictoria (facta παρ᾽ ἱστορίαν).

Procop. de Bell. Goth. i. 7 ἀερίσας dpra (AFRICA CAPTA).

(8) Confusion of Numerals: numerals introduced into
the text in place of other words.

Bede, Of. i. 149 numeri . . . negligenter describuntur et negligentius
emendantur. Cobet, V. L., p. 362. Εν ὟΝ. Shipley, Certain sources of corruption,

Ρ. 46.

Thue. iv. 13. 2. πεντήκοντα (τεσσαράκοντα).

Lysias xxv. 14 οὔτε τῶν τετρακοσίων ἐγενόμην . . . οὐδ᾽ ἐπειδὴ
t+oldet κατέστησαν οὐδείς με ἀποδείξει ἀρχὴν οὐδεμίαν ἄρξαντα (οἱ
τριάκοντα, A = 30 misread as A); cf. Isaeus, viii. 7. 5.

Dionys. Hal. viii. 1685 συνεβούλευσεν ἑλέσθαι (ἑλέσθαι i, 1. 6. δέκα).

Athenaeus 640 D (Sophilus): the Marcianus reads οὐχὶ B:
other manuscripts οὐχὶ δύο. The'right reading is οὐχὶ δώδεκα,
1.€. οὐχὶ IB.

id. 137 Ὁ πόρναι δύο εἰσῆλθον (πόρναι δ΄ εἰσῆλθον).

Cic. Epp. ad Fam. xv. 4. 9 castellaque sex capta complura
incendimus (ui capta); cf. Phil. x. 7. 15, where an inferior
codex reads duo for it.

Sueton. D. Aug. 54 Antistius Labeo senatus lectione, cum
triumuirum legeret, M. Lepidum legit (cum v7 wirum—which
has been wrongly transcribed as cum 111 «rw and this in
turn expanded into ¢rdumuirum).

The difficulty of maintaining accuracy in numerals caused

EMENDATION 181

grave inconvenience in ancient times. Damocrates (circ. A.D. 50)
is known to have written his medical recipes in iambic verse in
order to avoid corruption. v. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyc. iv.
2069.

In Latin manuscripts of the Carolingian period there is a
frequent confusion of »=1000 with x=10. The symbol for
500 (8) was often omitted because it was mistaken for an ordi-
nary D with the sign of erasure drawn through it.

(9) Confusion in Proper Names.

Madvig, Adv. i. 142; Schubart, pp. 5 544. and 93; Cobet, V. L., p.12; Ε W.
Shipley, Sources of Corruption, p. 20; Heraeus, Quaest. Crit., p. 42 (on mistakes
arising from abbreviated names).

This species of confusion is common even in the best manu-
scripts, e.g. the Blandinian of Horace read Claud? for Caudi in
Sat. i. 5. 51. Latin scribes frequently alter a proper name to
the adjective which comes nearest to it in outward form: e.g.
Batti appears as beati, Cleomenes as clemens; cf. Friedrich,
Catullus, pp. 169 and 206.

Thue. 1. 61. 3 ἐπιστρέψαντες (ἐπὶ Στρέψαν).

ib. 5. 2. 2 κατέπλευσεν ἐς τὸν tKoAodwviwvt λιμένα (Κωφὸν λιμένα).

Aristot. ’A@ Πολ. xvii αὐτου for ᾿Ανύτου. Cf. Xen. Apologia
31. (Due to the suprascript sign for v.)

Plutarch, Mor. 777 Ὁ οὐ yap ἡ μὲν ᾿Αφροδίτη ταῖς τοῦ Ἰπροσπόλου
θυγατράσιν ἐμήνιεν ὅτι κτλ. (Προποίτου, cf. Ovid, Metam. x. 221).

Athenaeus, 506D τὸν ἀδελφὸν δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου Τκαὶ νικίαν
(Κλεινίαν).

Often the corruption could not have been remedied but for

external evidence: e.g.

Plutarch, Mor. 99 B tévat μέντοι φασὶν ἵππον ζωγραφοῦντα, Where
the name Νεάλκη could not have been restored but for the
evidence of Plin. H. NV. xxxv. 104.

Cic. m Pris. 85 louis welsurt fanum (louis Urii, i.e. Οὐρίου :
cf. In Verr. 2 Act. iv. 128).

In Verr. 2 Act. iv. 49 homini nobili meliorum hospiti. (50

182 EMENDATION

the Harleian. The Regius has zucoliorum, a corruption of
Lucullorum.)

Pro Sest. 62. 130 ad unum dicitius or ad unum dicto citius (ad ~
Numidici illius).

Liv. xxii. 16. 4 fortunae minas saxa (Formiana saxa).

Suet. Calig. 23. 1 Actiacas singulasque uictorias (Siculas).

Sen. Rhet. Suasor. vii. 12 Cestium practorem (Cestium P(ium)
rhetorem. Here the mistake has come from the abbre-
viation).

A good instance of the confusion caused by this form of error
will be found in H. Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus, p. 272. Suet.
Calig. 44 says ‘Nihil autem amplius quam Adminio Cynobellini
Britannorum regis filio . . . in deditionem recepto’, which is
corrupted in Orosius, 7151. adu. paganos, vil. 5. 5 to ‘Cumque
ibi Minocynobelinum Brittannorum regis filium . . . in deditio-
nem recepisset’. This is further corrupted in Nennius into
‘Minocennt Bellinum Brittannorum regis filium’, who appears in
the Welsh triads as ‘Beli mawr ab Mynogan’. (I owe this refer-
ence to Mr. W. H. Stevenson.)

It is rare to find proper names introduced as the result of
corruption :

Thue. v. 77. 4 περὶ δὲ τῶ σιῶ σύματος, ai μὲν λῆν, κτλ. (μὰ τὴν σεμέ-

λην is the hopeless corruption of some inferior manuscripts).

Eur. Herachd. 163 Τιρυνθίοις Ons (τί ῥυσιασθείς).

Max, Tyr. xxxvill. 3 G Ἐεναγόρας (ἐξ ἀγορᾶς).

Liv. xxxv. 16.6 in Antiochum ius repetit (in antiquum ius).

Tac. Aun. iv. 73. 1 ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus, whence
Ptolemy, Geog. ii. 11. 12, has probably invented the bogus
town Σιατουτάνδα.

Cf. Ennius ap. Cic. d. nat. d. iii. 25. 65, where Vahlen would
read ni ob rem for Niobe.

Substitution of biblical names by Christian Scribes. This is of

course unconscious. Cf. Friedrich, Catullus, p. 339 and infra.

Julian, Conviv., p. 321 A Ἑ βραίων for Ἰβήρων.

Libanius, i. 352. 10 (Foerster, i, p. 521) Γαλιλαίαν for Ἰταλῶν.

Cic. Phil. xi. 4 Galileam (in one manuscript) for Galliam.

EMENDATION 183

Liv. xxxvi. 21. 2 Christoteles for Aristoteles.
Suet. D. Jul. 25. 1 Gehenna for Cebenna.
Quint. Curt. iii. 8. 1 Barnabazo for Pharnabazo.
Macrob. Saé. iii. 17. 4 hebrei for ebrii.

Cf. Chaucer, Book of the Duchesse, 167, ‘Eclympasteyre, That
was the god of slepés heyre’—a corrupt name that has not yet
been emended. Byron, Childe Harold, ii. 51. 3, ‘Chimaera’s
Alps extend from left to right’ (Chimari’s). Shelley, Prometheus,
137, ‘and /ove how I cursed him’ (and, Jove, how, &c.).

(10) Mistakes due to change in Pronunciation.

On the question whether dictation is or is not the source of
many errors different opinions are still held. Ebert, Hand-
schriftkunde, i. 138; Madvig, Adv. i. 10; Schubart, p. 90;
W. Schubart, Das Buch ὦ. d. Griechen u. Rémern, p. 142; hold
the view (which seems most probable) that there is little evidence
that dictation on a large scale was ever practised in antiquity,
and that there is no evidence that it was practised in mediaeval
monasteries, where silence was rigidly enjoined in the scripto-
rium. Neither the ‘subscriptiones’ which are frequently added at
the end of manuscripts nor the errors which manuscripts exhibit
afford any ground for such an assumption, while the ‘proba-
tiones pennae’ so frequently found (p. 84) are direct evidence
against it. The explanation of the many errors which seem due
to defective pronunciation or to the confusion of ancient with
modern sounds is to be sought in the intimate connexion which
exists between the ear and the eye (cf. supra, p. 85). The eye
of the copyist takes in a small portion of the text, but what his
eye sees is necessarily presented to his mind as a collocation of
sounds, and hence the sound which would come most readily to
his lips is produced as readily by his pen. This view will
explain such mistakes as fac sit for faxit in Ter. Ph. 554 and nec
stbus for nexibus (i.e. nixtbus) Verg. G. iv. 199, and such common
errors as magorum (for maiorum), agebat (for azebat), gemebat
(hiemabat), &c. It is hard to resist the conclusion that texts

184 EMENDATION

would be in a far more hopeless condition if dictation had ever
been a recognized aid in reproduction. With a reader as well
as a copyist employed the chances of error would have been
doubled at the outset.' For the methods of copyists see p. I1
and p. 83.

Against this view: Keller-Holder, Horace, i, p. 62; Ribbeck,
Vergil, i. 257-8.

Among the commonest errors in Greek, due to changes in
pronunciation are: (a) The confusion of ἐν ἤ, v, εἰ, οἱ (called
Itacism where « prevails). Cf. Madvig, Adv. i. 99; Vollgraff,
p. 25, p. 31; Wyse, Jsaeus, p. xli.

Lys. Or. xill. 34 ot τριάκοντα κατέστησαν καὶ Ἰτοιοῦτον dewovt τῇ

πόλει ἐγένετο (τί οὐ τῶν δεινῶν).

Theocr. xiv. 17 βολβός τις κοχλίας (probably βολβός, xreis).

Athenaeus 508 B ἄπεισι (ἃ πείσει). ib. 1. 613 D τι εἰ τι (τήτῃ).

Plutarch, Pelopid. 23 πρὸς οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐπαίδευον αὑτοὺς καὶ

συνείθιζον, ὡς τὸ μὴ πλανᾶσθαι μηδὲ ταράττεσθαι τάξεως διαλυ-
θείσης, ἀλλὰ χρώμενοι πᾶσι πάντες ἐπιστάταις καὶ ζευγίταις, ὅποι
ποτὲ συνίστησιν ὃ κίνδυνος καὶ καταλαμβάνει" συναρμόττειν καὶ
μάχεσθαι παραπλησίως (ὅπου ποτὲ καὶ σὺν οἵστισιν ὁ κίνδ. κατα-
λαμβάνοι).

(ὁ) Confusion of αι, ε and of αι, οι. Cobet, V. 1..,) p. 124; Van
Leeuwen, Codex Ravennas, p. xiv. E.g. φέρω, confused with φαίνω,
ἕτερος With ἑταῖρος (Ar. Lys. 1153), πέσωμεν with παίσωμεν (ib.
Thesm. 947). ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ εἴποις for ὡσπερανεὶ παῖς (Plato, Gorg. 479 A),
δὲ τὰ (δαῖτα) Athenaeus 460 B. The confusion between a and e
is found also when the iota is subscript, e.g. Aesch. Pers. 121
ἔσεται (ἄσεται) and where the a in a belongs to one word and the
cto the next, e.g. ἀλλ᾽ ἐῶμεν for ἀλλὰ ἴωμεν Plato, Symp. 174 D, and
Epicharmus 254 (Kaibel) where Ahrens reads σάφα ἔσαμι for
σαφὲς dut. For the confusion of ὦ and o see p. 160.

For Latin instances v. Schuchhardt, Vokalismus, passim, and
Hagen, p. 35.

1 In Paris. 3056 a manuscript of Athenaeus, written by Hermolaus Barbarus,

his own subscription (which could not possibly have been dictated) contains
the error ἐγράφει for ἐγράφη, showing how natural such errors are in all ages.

EMENDATION | 185

(11) Substitution of Synonyms or of Familiar Words
for Unfamiliar.

Many of these substituted words are glosses and will be con-
sidered later, s.v. Adscripts. There is a strong tendency to
substitute words similar in form which are meaningless in the
context.

Hesiod, Theog. 83 τῷ μὲν ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ γλυκερὴν χείουσιν Τἀοιδήν.
The best manuscripts have ἀοιδήν with ἐέρσην suprascript.
ἐέρσην is now confirmed by the Achmim papyrus.

Aristoph. Thesm. 53 κάμπτει δὲ νέας taoridast ἐπῶν (ἁψῖδας).

ib. 910 ἐγὼ δὲ Μενελάῳ σ᾽ ὅσα γ᾽ ἐκ τῶν tadtwvrt (ἰφύων).

Plato, Phileb. 46 Ἑ ἀπορίαις (πυρίαις).

Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 6 tkadrécast δὲ τούσδε τοὺς ἐφιππίους τοῖς τῶν
ἱππέων ἡγεμόσι δός (κασᾶς ‘saddles ἢ).

Theocrit. xv. 30 μὴ δὴ πολύ, Τάπληστε,} ἔγχει ὕδωρ (λαιστρί, cf.
Herondas vi. 10).

~ [Longinus, ] περὶ ὕψους, iii. 4 ὀρεγόμενοι μὲν... τοῦ ἡδέος, ἐξο-
κέλλοντες δὲ εἰς tro ῥοπικὸν (sic P) καὶ κακόζηλον (τὸ τροπικόν
apographa: τὸ ῥωπικόν Vossius).

Clemens Alex. Protrept. ii. 22. 4. tkapd~art, νάρθηκές τε καὶ κιττοί
(κράδαι).

Plaut. Rud. 580 ciccum non interdum (interduim).

Cic. Div. in QO. Caec. 49 quartum quem sit habiturus non uideo,
nisi quem forte ex illo grege moratorum. (Here manu-
scripts give wrongly meritorum or oratorum).

Liv. xxvii. 20. 9 Tarentum captum astu magis. (P omits the

*word, the deteriores have captum ingenio.)

Cf. Boccaccio, Dec. Fourth Day, Tenth novel, the word stratico
(στρατηγός), the proper title of an office in Salerno, has been
replaced by stadico, which is here meaningless. Chaucer, Wyf
of Bathe, 144, ‘And let us wyves hofen (i.e. ‘be called’) barley
breed.’ The comparison of wives to barley bread is balanced
by the comparison of virgins to wheaten bread. The vulgate
readirig is ‘eaten’, which makes nonsense. Id. Zhe Clerkes

186 EMENDATION

Tale, 616, ‘And God they thank and herte’ (i.e. ‘ praise’). De-

teriores have, ‘And God they thank /or he was hairy.’ Book of
Common Prayer, ‘Till death us depart.’ Now altered to ‘do
part’. Bullen, O. £. Plays, τ. 32 (1882), ‘shoulder packt Pelops.’

Should be ‘shoulder pacht,’ i. e. patched, with reference to P.’s

ivory shoulder. Gay, 7 γυΐα, iii. 203, ‘Spongy morsels in strong

ragousts are found.’ (So some of the recent reprints: the true

reading is morells, a species of mushroom.)

(12) New spellings and forms substituted for old.

Instances of this will be found in all manuscripts. Often the

later forms are introduced in defiance of metre.

Ar. Nub. 728 R has ἐξευρητέος yap νοῦς ἀποστερητικός (ἐξευρετέος) :
ib. 1409 ἐτύπτησας for ἔτυπτες. Au. 394 κατορυχθησόμεθα for
κατορυχησόμεσθα. Ach. 865 προσέπταντο for προσέπτοντο. ,

This symptom is of importance for estimating the value of

a manuscript, since modernization of spelling is one of the first

signs of a wilfully corrupted tradition. In the best manuscripts, .
though modern spellings have crept in, there is always a large
residue of ancient spellings. E.g. ἅσμενος in the Clarkianus of
Plato, σώιζειν (Ran. 1517), θυείδιον (Plut. 710), ἐγκατακλινῆναι (Au.
122), συβήνη (Thesm. 1215), in V or R of Aristophanes. |

(13) Interpolation.

Madvig, Adv. τ. 70 ‘palmam simplicitatis Latini scribae tenent rudiores
quam Graeci’; Cobet, de arte interpretandi, p. 67; Roemer, Arist. Rhetoric
(Teubner), p. xxvii. ᾿

By this is understood any conscious alteration of the text
where the original words have become obliterated in whole or
in part.?

It is difficult if not impossible to detect the interpolations of
ancient scholars. The manuscript of Vergil used by Seneca

1 Interpolare, ‘to furbishup’; cf. Plaut. Mos¢, 262 ‘noua pictura interpolare uis
opus lepidissumum’. It is used by Cic. Zn Verr. 2 Act. i, 158 of ‘tampering with
records’ and by the early scholars in the sense of ‘to correct’, e.g. Muretus,
Epp. i. 9 ‘per me quidem non interpoles modo eam ucrum etiam de integro cudas’.

EMENDATION 187

apparently completed Aen. x. 284 ‘audentes Fortuna iuuat’ by
the ending ‘piger ipse sibi obstat’ (Sen. Epp. 94. 28). Had this
interpolation invaded our tradition it could hardly have been
detected.

The character of a later interpolation varies greatly according
as it is made by an ignorant scribe or a scholar. Scribes
always take the path of least resistance, and we must guard
against attributing any deep learning or ingenuity to them.
E.g. Pausan. iii. 16. 4: owing to some defect in the archetype
the text is reduced to the letters ᾿Αθηναίων... .. pw. The scribe
of one manuscript alters this to ᾿Αθηναίων ἥρωι without regard to
the context. In most manuscripts the scribes entirely suppress
the traces of a lacuna; e.g. Paus. v. 1. 5 Ἡρακλεῶται δὲ és
Adrpov τὸ ὄρος ἀποχωρῆσαί φασιν αὐτόν μουσι, ‘Kal ἄδυτον “Evduptwvos
ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Λάτμῳ, where some manuscripts suppress μουσι, which
is.clearly the termination of the lost verb, others emend wildly
to μουσικαί. Ina manuscript of Plutarch (cod. Reg. Paris. 1671,
thirteenth century) a scribe confesses to this practice of omission.
τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο ἀσαφέστατόν ἐστι διὰ TO πολλαχοῦ διαφθαρέντα τὰ TOV
παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων μὴ δύνασθαι σώζειν τὴν συνέχειαν τοῦ λόγου. καὶ
εἶδον ἐγὼ παλαιὰν βίβλον, ἐν ἧ πολλαχοῦ διαλείμματα ἣν ὡς μὴ δυνη-
θέντος τοῦ γράφοντος εὑρεῖν τὰ λείποντα, ἐλπίσαντος δ᾽ ἴσως εὑρήσειν
ἀλλαχοῦ. ἐνταῦθα μέντοι κατὰ συνέχειαν ἐγράφη τὰ διαλείποντα τῷ
μηκέτι ἐλπίδας εἶναι τὰ λείποντα εὑρεθήσεσθαι. Often the inter-
polation is caused by a desire for clearness, and is the result of
the efforts of an inferior scholar: e.g. Plut. Pyrrh. 24 Bia pera
τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν, Where μετά has been added by some one who did
not understand the construction of Bia. Or a verb is supplied ;
e.g. Ov. Heroid. ii. 53 ‘Dis quoque credidimus. Quo iam tot
pignora zobrs ?’ where nobis has been altered to prosunt.

The more serious interpolation practised by the scholars of
the Byzantine and Italian Renaissance has been discussed in ch.
11, pp. 43 544. and in ch. iv.

It is obviously very difficult in many cases to distinguish
interpolations from some of the graphical errors which have
been already described.

“τ΄
188 EMENDATION

A few instances are here subjoined in which there is sufficient
evidence to show the progress of the corruptions which have
ended in interpolation.

Aristoph. Eccl. 569 ὥστε σέ τέ μοι μαρτυρεῖν (probably the right
reading).

ὥστέ σε γέ μοι μ. R. roth cent.
ὅστις γέ μοι μ. Τὶ 14th cent.
ὅστις ἂν μοι μ. Β. 16th cent.
ὥστ᾽ ἔμοιγε μ. Aldine.

Xen. Cyr. ν. 5. 23 τῶν γε ζώντων D: τῶν τε ζώντων C: τῶν πεζῶν
τῶν AG.

Athen. 693 ¢ ἐκπεπήδηκας πρὶν ἀγαθοῦ πρῶτον δαίμονος λαβεῖν.

ἐκπεπιήδεκας κτλ. Marcianus. toth cent.
ἐκπίῃ δέπας κτλ. deteriores.

Aristot. Poet. 1461° 34 ὡδὶ ἢ ὡς ΑΘ; ὠδικῶς Be PP: ὧδί πως Pa
Aldine.

Ovid, 7 γ5έ. i. 9. 52 where Haec diuinaut has passed through
the corrupt haec diu nout to the interpolated hecgue diu nout
in the 13th cent. MS. D.

Plin. Epp. 1. 20.14 ‘Ego iugulum statim uideo, hunc premo’...
Respondi posse fieri ut genw esset aut talus, ubi ille iugulum
putaret.

genu esset aut talus MV. gth cent.

genuisset aut talus B. gth cent.

genuisset aut sibi aut altis ¥. 9th cent.

genu esset aut tibia aut talus u. 15th cent.

Many of the developments in the corruption of proper names
(supra, p. 181) are true interpolations. The scribe alters the text
consciously as soon as he attempts to replace the corruption by
articulate words.

Monkish interpolations. These are negligible in quantity. They
do not proceed from malice prepense but are the natural result
of minds preoccupied by religion.

For Greek instances see A. Ludwich, Avistarchs Hom.
Texthritik, i. 96.

Aristot. Poet. 1455" 14 Ὀδυσσεῖ τῷ WevdayyéAw. The Arabic

EMENDATION 189

version has ‘euangelistae illius sancti’ (? ὁσίῳ or ἱερῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ).
This was pointed out to me by Mr. H. W. Garrod.

For Latin: Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 67 sqq.; Postgate, T7zbui-
lus, p. 203; Havet, p. 265 ; Lindsay, p. 66.

Lucr. v. 692 contudit tempora serpens (concludit).

Hor. Car. iii. 18. 12 cum boue pardus (pagus). Velleius, ii.
II4. I unigenitio (uni negotio). Petron. 43 abbas secreuit (ab
asse creuit). Manilius, iv. 422 laudatique cadit post paulum
gratia Christi (gratia ponti). Amen is commonly substituted for
agmen, amem, tamen, e.g. Cic. Phil. xiii. §6. Angelus for angulus,
ever ΞΕ. £ Ap) 31.11.

Cf. Hebraisms, supra, p. 182.

II. Omissions.

- (14) Haplography, i.e. a letter or syllable or word or
words are written once instead of twice.

Madvig, Adv. i. 34; Lindsay, Anc. Edd. of Plautus, p. 109; Roemer, Ar.
Rhet. (Teubner), p. xxv ; Hagen, pp. 78-80; Van Leeuwen, Codex Ravennas of
Aristoph., p. xi; cf. p. xii, § 6. -

This is generally due to the similar beginnings or endings of
words in the same context (omocoteleuta or homococatarcta). As
however any group of letters, whatever their place in the word,
might give rise to this error, Postgate has proposed homoeo-
grapha as a general term to describe them (C. 2. 1902, p. 309).

Aristoph. Plut. 258. R has ὡς εἰκὸς ἀσθενεῖς γέροντας ἄνδρας ἤδη

for γέροντας (ὄντας) : V interpolates ὡς εἰκός (ἐστιν) ἀσθενεῖς
κτλ.

Plat. Phileb. 4τ A τὰς μὲν τοίνυν πονηρὰς ἡδονὰς. . . ὀλίγον Τῦστε-

ροῦμεν (ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν).

Eur. Hel. 561 Με. Ἑλληνὶς εἶ τις ἢ ᾽πιχωρία γυνή ;

‘EA. Ἑλληνίς: ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σὸν θέλω μαθεῖν.
The first line is omitted in manuscripts of Euripides. It has
been restored from the parody in Ar. Thesm. 907.

Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 22 πόνων. . . βουλόμενον {μεῖον ἔχειν, where

manuscripts either omit μεῖον or interpolate αὐτόν.

190 EMENDATION

Dio Chrys. Or. i, p. 635 φέρε τοίνυν συμβάλετε τοῦτο τὸ ἔθος
ἐκείνῳ TO νόμῳ, κἂν μὲν tipiv κατά tet φαίνηται, φυλάξετε αὐτὸ
.. ἐὰν δὲ πανταχῇ σκοπούμενοι χεῖρον εὑρίσκητε. .. λύσατε.᾽
Read κἂν μὲν ὑμῖν (ἄμεινον) κατά τι. The mistake has arisen
from the contraction ὑμῖν, or possibly ὑμεῖν, ἄμειν,

Athenaeus, p. 360 δὸς ὦναξ δός (δὸς ὦν, ἄναξ, δός): ib. p. 528 ἁπλοῦς
(ἁπαλούς). Strabo xiv. 41, p. 648 ἔτι μάλιστα (ἐτίμα μάλιστα).

Plaut. 7. (σ. 727-9 Sicut merci pretium statuit [qui est pro-
bus agoranomus:

quae probast (mers, pretium ei statuit,] pro uirtute ut ueneat,

quae inprobast,) pro mercis uitio dominum pretio pauperet.

Here the words in round brackets are omitted by the Am-
brosian where the scribe’s eye was caught by sfatuit. Those
in square brackets are omitted by the Palatine group in
whose archetype the scribe was mislead by prodasz.

Cic. pro Sulla, 55 at praefuit familiae Cornelius (Cornelius 1.
eius, i.e. libertus eius, A. C. Clark).

Cic. zx Pris. 87 uectigalem prouinciam (p. r. ὦ δ. populi Romani
prouinciam).

Ovid, Epp. ex Ponto, i. 4. 36 quae tulit esoniden sa carina fuit
(Hamburgensis, 9th cent.): saccarina y (12th cent.): sacra
carina β (12th cent.): firma carina vu/g. (densa carina).

Quint. Curt. iv. 3. 26 ubi loricam corpusque .. . penetra-
uerat (corpus usque).

Seneca, V.Q. i. 3. 12 pars coloris sole est sparsa nube
(sparsa, pars nube).

Cf. Selden, Table Talk (Reynolds), p. 61, sv. Equity 2: ‘...
as if they should make the standard for the measure we call <a
foot) a chancellor’s foot. What an uncertain measure this
would be! One chancellor has a long foot,’ ἄς.

(15) Lipography (parablepsia) or simple omission
of any kind.

Madvig, Adv. i, pp. 40, Sqq.; Schubart, p. 35; Marquardt, Galen (Teubner), i,
p. xxix; Bywater, p. 16.

This is a form of error recognized by Galen, περὶ δυσπνοίας

EMENDATION Ig!

(Kiihn, vii, p. 892), ἐφυλάχθη τε εἰκότως μέχρι δεῦρο τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σφάλμα
(i. ε. the omission of one class of πνεῦμα in Hippocrates’ account),
τινῶν μὲν ὀλιγώρως ὁμιλούντων τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίοις, ὡς μήτ᾽ εἰ
λείπει τι μήτ᾽ εἰ Ov ἑτέρου γράμματος εἴρηται γνωρίζειν, ἐνίων δὲ γνωρι-
ζόντων μὲν ἀλλὰ προσθεῖναι οὐ τολμώντων.

Generally the omissions are slight, small words or groups of
words, initial letters or letters in the body of a word. The
following are taken from Bywater (I. c.) :

Omission of οὐ Eth. Nic. 11218 25, μή 1120* 16, 32, dv 1170? 24.

τὸ πῶς (for ἀτόπως) 1136 12, ἀφιστᾶναι (for ἀφίστανται) T112» 25.

Galen, περὶ ψυχ. ἅμαρτ. 99 ἤκουσα πρῴην ἀφιστούντοιν (ἀπιστούντοιν
vulg.) δυοῖν φιλοσόφοιν {ἀμφισβητούντοιν).

Clemens Alex. Paedagog. il. 110. 2 εἰ δὲ καὶ ὑφεῖναι χρὴ trodrovt
διὰ Tas γυναῖκας (τοῦ τόνου).

In Latin the omission of single letters is exceedingly common

“in any text copied from the continuous hands, e.g. uncials:

Liv. v. 39. 11 nec ante deseri cultum e¢ovwm quam non super-
essent qui colerent (deorum); vi. 11. 8 non contentus agra-
riis legibus, quae materia semper . . . seditionum fuisset
zdem moliri coepit (fidem); xxii. 17. 6 tum uero insidias rati
esse cum maiore mu/to concitant se in fugam (maiore tu-
multu).

Catull. το. 33 sed ¢u/sa O (14th cent.) for sed tu insulsa.

11. Appitions.
(16) Repetitions from the immediate or neighbouring
context.
(a) Dittography, 1. e. immediate repetition or anticipation of
any kind.
Madvig, Adv. i. 34 sqq.; Schubart, p. 28; Hagen, pp. 80-2; Shipley, p. 23.
Lysias xix. 6 μάλιστα δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔχοι ἄν τις δεινότατον ὅταν πολλοὶ
ἐπὶ τῇ αὐτῇ αἰτίᾳ εἰς ἀγῶνα καταστῶσιν (ἔχοι ἄν τις ἰδεῖν, ὅταν). Cf. id.
Xiv. 29 ὃν μᾶλλον (ἀλλ᾽ ὅν).
Athen. 694 Ὁ γελασείας, ὦ Πάν, ἐπ᾽ ἐμαῖς
Ἠεὐφροσύναις ταῖσδ᾽ ἀοιδαϊσαοιδεῖ κεχαρημένος.

(εὔφροσι ταῖσδ᾽ ἀοιδαῖς κεχ.)

192 EMENDATION

Paus. ili. 10. 2 ᾿Αγησίλαος δὲ καὶ és Αἰτωλίαν tadixovpyowvt
ἀφίκετο (ἐπικουρήσων).

Liv. iv. 44. 12 eam ampliatam pontifex maximus abstinere.
iocis iussit. Here M has eam am ampliatam ...: P am-
pliatam: but the rest interpolate famam amplatam.

id. xxi. 29. 5 ex consiliis coeptisque hospitts (hostis).

id. xlii. 17. 8 iussueiussuromam, so Vind. lat. 15 /or iussu
eius Romam.

Sen. Epp. 89. 13 Ariston Stoicus non tantum superuacuas esse ~
dixit sed etiam contrarias (Ariston Chius, the mistake has
passed through some such stage as Ariston Stonchius).

Suet. de wir. ill, p. 32. 13 Reiff. Quintus Cosconius redeun-
tem e Graecia periisse in mari dicit cum C et VIII fabulis
conuersis a Menandro. (Omit eviii, which is a dittography
of CVM.)

(b) Repetition from the preceding or following context. Sometimes
the word repeated displaces another from the text.

Vahlen, Opusc. i. 348 sqq.; Bywater, pp. 18-19; Wessely, Cod. Vindob. of
Livy, p. xviii; Friedrich, Catullus, p. 198; Richards, Xenophon and Others,

PP- 397 566.

The smaller the repetition the more likely it is that the
scribe’s eye has travelled forwards: the longer repetitions arise
from the eye travelling backwards.

In the following instances the word or words wrongly repeated
are enclosed in brackets :

Aristoph. Ames, 936-7 τόδε μὲν οὐκ ἀέκουσα φίλα

Μοῦσα [τόδε] δῶρον δέχεται.

Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 74 εἰ μὲν τρεψόμεθα ἐπὶ ῥᾳδιουργίαν καὶ τὴν τῶν
κακῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡδυπάθειαν, ot νομίζουσι τὸ μὲν πονεῖν ἀθλιότητα,
τὸ δὲ ἀπόνως βιοτεύειν [ ἡδυπάθειαν͵. Some noun such as εὐδαι-
μονίαν has been extruded.

Lysias, xxxi. 24 περὶ τὴν πόλιν ὕστερον βουλεύειν ἀξιούτω φανερόν τι
ἀγαθὸν ὥσπερ τότε [ ἀγαθὸν | ποιήσας (κακόν).

[Longinus] περὶ ty. 44. 8 ἡνίκα τὰ θνητὰ ἑαυτῶν μέρη [καπάνητα]
ἐκθαυμάζοιεν. καπάνητα is a repetition of the preceding syl-
lables (ivi )ka τὰ θνητά,

EMENDATION 193

Plautus, Rudens, 968-9:

Gr. hunc homo feret a me nemo, ne tu te speres potis.

Tr. non ferat si dominus ueniat? Gr. dominus huic [nemo]

ne frustra sis.

Catull. 76. 23 non iam illud quaero contra [me] ut me diligat illa.

Tac. Ann. iv. 37 per omnes [per] prouincias.

Caution is needed before assuming that a repeated word is
necessarily corrupt, e.g. [Tibullus, | iv. 4. 5-6 ‘effice ne macies
pallentes occupet artus, Neu notet informis palida membra
color’. Here the vulgate candida membra is probably an inter-
polation from iv. 3. το. Cf. Vahlen, |. c., and also the remarks
on the style of Livy, ib. pp. 25sqq. Particular caution is needed
with writers who are more concerned with matter than with
style, e.g. Aristotle. (v. Bywater, Poetics 145331, note.)

Cf. Bossuet, Traite de la concupiscence, ‘On en voit qui passent
leur vie . . . a rendre agreables des choses non seulement in-
utiles, mais encore dangereuses, comme a chanter un amour
[εἰπέ ou | agreable].’ The last word should be veritable. Words-
worth, Chaucer’s Troilus 118, ‘With a soft [night] voice he of his
lady dear.’ Here the intrusive word zight probably anticipates
πη ΡΥ misht in) 1: 122, Alexander, Earl of. Sterline, Zo
Aurora, ‘Then all my thoughts should in my visage shine’ (thy).

E. Bronté, Poetical Works (ed. Shorter), vol. i:

Some were dazzling like the sun,
Some shining down at summer noon,
Some were sweet as amber even.

Here some in the second line should be omitted.
Other instances are noted by H. P. Richards, Xenophon and
Others, p. 309.
(17) Insertions from the Margin.
Such as (a) Titles, Numbers, Running Analyses, Remarks of
readers, (ὁ) Variant readings, Glosses, and Explanations of the

construction.

For the last three the wider term Adscriptis often used.
Cobet, V. L., pp. xxix, 480; E. Maas, Mélanges Graux, p. 756; Bywater,
Poetics 1450" 16, note on numbers intruded where a list is under discussion.

473 O

194 EMENDATION

Galen, ὑπόμν. β΄ εἰς ἐπιδ. ζ΄ Κύμη xvii. 1, p. 909 φαίνεται μὲν
γὰρ ὡς ἐξηγήσει προσγραφὲν ὑπό τινος, αὖθις δὲ εἰς τοὔδαφος (the
text) ὑπὸ τοῦ βιβλιογράφου μετατεθεῖσθαι. Simplicius 7m Cat.
Kalbfleisch, p. 88. 24 οὐδὲν γὰρ ᾿Αριστοτέλης ἐκ περιττοῦ τοῖς
λόγοις προστίθησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως ἔξω παραγεγραμμένης τῆς ἄλλης
γραφῆς οἱ γράφοντες τὰ δύο εἰς τὸ ἐδάφιον ἐνέγραψαν. The
scribe of Marcianus A of Photius (Bibliotheca) 336" 2 notes:
ἐν TO μετώπῳ ἦν τοῦ πρωτοτύπου βιβλίου: ὁ δὲ petaypawas καὶ
τοῦτο ἐντὸς τέθεικε.

(a) Lysias, xxiv. 3 καὶ γὰρ οἶμαι δεῖν τὰ τοῦ σώματος δυστυχήματα τοῖς
τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἰᾶσθαι [ καλῶς]. καλῶς being a note of
approval.

Plat. de rep. 504 E καὶ μάλα ἔφη [ἄξιον τὸ διανόημα.

Alciphron, Epp. 3. 7 οἷα γὰρ οἶα πάσχει τὰ δίκαια] λακκόπλουτοι
εἰργάσαντό με. .. πλείονα ἢ κατὰ τὸ κύτος τῆς γαστρὸς ἐσθίειν
ἀναγκάζοντες. Cf. Soph. Ο. 7. 896 with Jebb’s cr. note.

Cic. de off. 111. 31. 112. Here a long historical note has found
its way into the text.

Propert. iv. 8.3. Neapolitanus 268 has [non potuit legi] uetus
est tutela draconis, a note stating that some words had been
omitted because they could not be read.

Varro, R. R. iii. 7. §1 de quibus Me[de columbis |rula Axio.

Liv. iii. 41. 1 ferociores iterum coorti Valerius | Valerius
Horatiusque contra sententiam Maluginensis| Horatiusque
uociferari. In the last two instances marginal analyses have
become incorporated with the text.

Pomponius Mela 3. 6 Omnium uirtutum ignari (i.e. the
Irish) magis quam aliae gentes [aliquatenus tamen gnari].
Perhaps the protest of some Irish scribe or reader.

The casual jottings of readers and correctors are often im-
ported into the text. Among such may be noted: @., i.e. ζήτει
(Aesch. Choeph. 351, 530); ὡραῖον (cf. Vahlen on the περὶ ὕψους,
p. viii); perhaps the curious ἡμῖν so often found in the Urbinas of
Isocrates is a relic of some marginal remark. In Latin the most
frequent are: huc usque (Hertz, Aul. Gell., p. lvii), de(est) hic
(perhaps the explanation of the corrupt de his in pro Caecina 95),

EMENDATION 195

quaere, require, nure, optime. Cf. Lindsay, Text. Criticism of
Plautus, p. 60; Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 68.

Sometimes the comments (often quite pertinent) of readers
or teachers have invaded the text of philosophical and other
argumentative works. Cf. Marquardt, Ga/len, i, p. lv.

Cf. Selden, Zable Talk (Reynolds), p. 35. The book is
arranged alphabetically under headings. Under the heading
‘Changing sides’, after a story about Luther refusing the
Pope’s overtures, since he had become greater than the Pope
could make him, the text proceeds, ‘So have our preachers
done that are against the bishops, they have made themselves
greater with the people than they can be made the other way
and therefore there is the ess Charity probably of bringing them
off.” (Here ‘Charity’ is the heading of the following section
and has been intruded into the text. Most edd. read with
Singer /ess probability.)

(ὁ) Adscripts.

The practice of noting variant readings needs no illustration.
In Greek they are usually introduced by the sign γρ., i.e.
γράφεται: in Latin by vel or al, i.e. altter or alius codex.

Glosses. TAéooa means originally an obscure word, but the
term is generally used in the sense of the explanation of such a
word. Thus Varro, de ding. Jat. vii. 107, in speaking of a word
persibus, which he thinks is derived from ferite, says, ‘sub hoc
glossema “callide”’ subscribunt.’

Such explanations are usually written over a word (interlinear)
or in the margin. They presuppose some measure of scholar-
ship (often very small) and are not due to the ordinary copyist.
Three points should be remembered before it is assumed that
a gloss has disturbed the original text. (1) The word glossed
must not be an ordinary word, but one that presents certain
difficulties. (2) Such a word must be glossed by a word easier
than itself: φθιτοί could not be a gloss upon vexpot. (3) The
gloss must be in the same construction as the word which it
explains.

196 EMENDATION

Lysias, 17. viii. 1 οὔτε τιμῆς τεταγμένης πωλοῦσιν, GAN ὡς ἂν δύναιντο
πλειστηριάσαντες [πλείστου ἀπέδοντο].

Isaeus, vili. 42. 4 φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα] ἐκείνῳ δέδωκε. Cf. p. 164.

Plat. de rep. 364 Ὲ πείθοντες... ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ καθαρμοὶ
ἀδικημάτων διὰ θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς [ ἡδονῶν | εἰσι.

Dem. Ol. ii. §20 αἱ γὰρ εὐπραξίαι δειναὶ συγκρύψαι καὶ συσκιά-
σαι] τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνείδη. This passage proves the antiquity of
such glosses. συσκιάσαι is suggested by the word ἐπισκοτεῖ
which occurs in the preceding sentence. It is omitted in Σ,
but was in the text used by the rhetor Theon in the time
of Hadrian, and is recognized by Stobaeus and the author
of the pastiche πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ Φιλίππου which was
regarded as genuine by the Alexandrines (v. Weil ad /oc.).

Dem. Conon, ὃ 26 zpos τὸν tBwpovt ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκίζοντες. (πρὸς
τὸν λίθον is known to be the right reading from Harpo-
cration.)

Galen, v. 19. 8 (Kihn) ὡς δὲ [πλεῖστον] ἄμετρον αἷμα χεόμενον
ἐθεάσατο.

Cic. in Verr. τι Act. 2. 61 iste amplam nactus VO: iste am-
plam occasionem nactus, gr (13th—-15th cent.): iste amplam
occasionem calumniae nactus ὧδ (15th-16th cent.). Here
the gloss to the rare word ampla enters the text and leads
to an interpolation.

Liv. iii. 2. 1 statiua habuit [castra].

ib. ix. 16. 8 eadem nocte portam aperuerunt armatosque clam
[nocte ] in urbem acceperunt.

ib. x. 43. 13 60 ipso loco tepropemere sub armis strati, 1. 6.
propere in the archetype was a gloss on ¢emere.

(c) Marginal or interlinear notes explaining the construction.

Aristoph. Au, 1080 εἶτα φυσῶν τὰς κίχλας δείκνυσι [πᾶσι] καὶ
λυμαίνεται.

Liv. iv. 21. 6 pestilentior annus tantum [metum] uastitatis in
urbe agrisque fecit.

Cf. Chaucer, The Parlement of Foules, 353, ‘The swalow,
mordrer of the flyés smale.’ Manuscripts have /ou/es or

EMENDATION 197

foulis (i.e. fowls), an obvious adscript: the edition of 1561
has beés smale. Dante, Conv. iv. 15, the word ‘etera’
(aether) has been displaced by the gloss ‘corpo sottile e
diafano’. ‘This is an absolutely certain correction since the
passage is a translation of Ovid, Met. i. 78-83.

(18) Conflated Readings.
Madvig, Emend. Liv., Ὁ. 15; Schubart, pp. 52 sqq.; Heraeus, p. 56; Bywater,
p- τὸ:
This error results from the practice of recording variants over
a word in the text or in the margin (v. supra, p. 195). The scribe
who copies a text containing these variants tends to combine
them into one word.

‘Plat. de rep. 353.49 ὃ ἄρτι ἠρώτων ADM: ὃ ἄρτι ἠρώτων πρῶτον

aA

Angelicus: ὃ ἄρτι πρῶτον Ε΄, ἠρώτων added in the margin by
a later hand.

Aristot. Poet. 14498 κρίνεται ἢ ναί, i.e. κρίνεται meaning that
there was a variant κρῖναι, cf. 10. 11 where φαὐλλικά in Ae
is a combination of φαῦλα and φαλλικά.

Plutarch, Mor. 217 F ᾿Αρηγεύς. The name required is ᾿Αρεύς
the Lacedaemonian form of "Apys. ᾿Αρηγεύς is a conflation of
the two forms.

Pausanias, vi. 23 ἔστι δὲ. .. καὶ ἐν τῶν παλαιστρῶν μιᾷ τύπος
Ἴδρωτα ἔχων. Some codd. have καὶ ταινίων παλαιστρῶν, i.e. ἐν
τῶν has been misread as ἐνίων : this has been corrected to
ἐνίων: the τ has been misplaced and the word read as τενίων.

Verbs compounded with two prepositions are often open to

the suspicion that they are the result of conflation: e.g.
συνεφίστημι.

Plaut. Most. 464 the editio princeps reads ‘di te deaeque omnes
perduaxint cum istoc omine’. The conflation arose from
the confusion of the two readings perduint and faxint. Cf.
Rudens, 1126.

Liv. ii. 56. 2 eum uexandis prioris anni consulibus permis-
surum administraturum tribunatum credebant (cod. Med.).
Here administraturum is a variant. The deteriores resort

198 EMENDATION

to interpolation to heal the passage and read admunistra-
turum permissum tribunatum.

Sen. Ag. 507 ars cessit malis E: in magnis malis A: ars in
magnis malis N.

ib. ΗΠ. O. 636 donet A: ponit E: podonet N.

(19) Additions made to a text through the influence of
kindred writings or of other portions of the author’s
work.

Leo, Plautinische Forschungen*, p. 33, note 3; Baehrens, Poet. Lat, Min. 1. 144;
5. G. Owen, Ovid, Tristia, pp. \xvii-]xviii.

This is a species of interpolation.

Plaut. Most.655 malum quod isti di deaeque omnes duint, has
been inserted in Ter. Phorm. 976.

ib. Capt. 800 faciam ut huius diei locique meique semper
meminerint, has been inserted in Ter. Lun. 801.

Ovid, 7ristia, ii. 364 a distich is interpolated from Cic. 756.

ἵν 55. ηἱ-

Germanicus, Avatea, 147 At capiti suberunt gemini prolem-
que tonantis, has been interpolated in the second class of
manuscripts from Avienus 370.

{The main authorities are:
Bywater, I. Contributions to the Textual Criticism of Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics. Oxford, 1892.
Copet, C.G. Variae Lectiones®. Leyden, 1873. Novae Lectiones, 1858. Mis-
cellanea Critica, 1876. Collectanea Critica, 1878.
Hacen, H. Gradus ad Criticen. Leipzig, 1879.
Havet, L. Manuel de Critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins, 1911.
Linpsay, W. M. Latin Textual emendation, 1896.
Mapvic, J. N. Adversaria Critica, 1871-3.
Scnupart, J. H.C. Bruchstiicke eu einer Methodologie der diplomatischen Krittk,
Cassel, 1855.
Suiptey, Εν W. Certain sources of corruption in Latin Manuscripts, New
York, 1904.
VAHLEN, J. Opuscula Academica, 1907-8.
Vo.tierarr, J.C. Studia Palaeographica. Leyden, 1870.
Other works referred to are quoted by the full title. |

CHAPTER VIL

Mo APTMIORITIES FOR FHE TEXT OF THE
CHEE CLASSICAL “WRITERS

AESCHINES (389-314 B.C.).
Speeches: (1) Kara Tipapxov. (2) Περὶ τῆς Παραπρεσβείας.
(3) Κατὰ Κτησιφῶντος. (4) Nine letters.

MSS. numerous and late. The text is corrupt but the cor-
ruptions are earlier than the Byzantine age, since many occur in
early Egyptian fragments, e.g. Or. 3. § 181 ᾿Αριστείδης δ᾽ ὃ δίκαιος
[ἐπικαλούμενος |.

In Or. 2 and 3 the best MSS. are e=Marcianus App. class.
8 cod. 4, 15th cent. k=Par. 2998, 13/14th cent. 1= Par. 3002,
16th cent. ek do not contain Or. 1, and in 1 it is derived from
a late source. In Orv. 1 the best is f=Par. Coislinianus 249,
? 13th cent. No MS. of the letters is older than 14th cent.

Ed. pr. in Aldus, Orationes Rhet. Graec. 1513.

Index!: Preuss, Leipzig, 1896; also in Blass, ed. mai. Teubner.

AESCHYLUS (525-456 B.c.).

Seven tragedies, preserved in the Blows order in M:
Πέρσαι (472), ᾿Αγαμέμνων (458), Χοηφόροι (458), Προμηθεύς (before
466), Eipevides (458), Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας (467), Ἱκέτιδες (after 461).

The chief authority is M=Mediceus siue Laurentianus 32. 9,
11th cent. (=L in Sophocles), facsimile by E. Rostagno 1896.
It has three lacunae, viz. in Agant. 311-1066, 1160-1673 (where
the loss is supplied by later MSS. especially Fl.=Florentinus
31. 8 a paper MS. of 14th cent.), and in the prologue to Choeph.,
where the loss cannot be repaired since the only other MS.
(viz. the Guelferbytanus) which contains the play is a copy of M,
made in the 15th cent. It has been held that all later MSS. are
descended from M but (1) Septem 195 is found in the late MSS.
and is absent in M, and (2) the late MSS. preserve many good
readings which are corrupted in M. It is a question, however,
whether such good readings are traditional or merely felicitous

1 Modern indexes are quoted where they are known to exist. The Delphin
indexes, which are quoted by the first edition, have often been reprinted. The
most convenient reprint is that of A. J. Valpy, London, 1819-1830.

200 AUTHORITIES

conjectures of the scholars of the Renaissance; e.g. in Ag. 297, M
has παιδίον ὠποῦ. The late MSS. have πεδίον ᾿Ασωποῦ which
possibly has been conjectured from Pers. 805.

The text of Demetrius Triclinius is preserved in Fa=Farne-
sianus I. E. 5 of the 14th cent.

Scholia. The oldest stratum goes back to Didymus. Recent
scholia by Tzetzes and others in Parisini 2785, 2787.

Ed. pr.: Aldus 1518, where, owing to the lacunae, the Agam.
and Choeph. are printed as one play.

Index: Beatson, Cambridge, 1830; W. Dindorf, Lexicon,
Leipzig, 1873-1876.
AETNA, S.V. VERGILIUS.

AGRIMENSORES (under Domitian and later).

Works on surveying and kindred subjects by Frontinus—
Hyginus — Agennius Urbicus — Balbus —Siculus Flaccus —
Nipsus.

Three classes of MSS. are recognized: (1) the best, Arcerianus-
Guelferbytanus 2403, 6/7th cent. (5. ν. P. F. Girard, ‘Le manu-
scrit des Gromatici de Jean du Tillet’ in Melanges Filling). (2)
Gudianus 105, 9/1oth cent.; Vaticanus Palatinus 1564, 9/1oth
cent.” (3) Erfurtensis-Amplonianus 362, 11th cent. The excerpta
Rostochiensia present a separate tradition. The problem of the
text has been reopened by C. Thulin, Die Handschriften des
Corpus Ag. Rom., Berlin, 1911.

First complete edition: Paris, 1554.

ALCIPHRON (probably contemporary with Lucian).

Imaginary letters, 118 survive entire, 6 in fragments. These
are now arranged in four books. MSS. are derived from the same
archetype. Nonearecomplete. (1) The best MS. isB=Vindob.
gr. 342, 12/13th cent., which contains the four books almost com-
plete. (2) MSS. with bk. 4 missing: K=with order 3, 2, 1:
Harleianus, 5566, 14th cent., and Venetus Marc. class. viii, no. 2,
14/15th cent. X'=with order 1, 2, 3: f= Par. 1696, 13/15th cent.,
and others. (3) ¢=Par. 3054, 15th cent., and N=Par. Suppl.
352, 13th cent., have four books incomplete in the order 1, 3, 2, 4.

Ed. pr.: Aldus in Collectio Epist. Gr. 1499, containing first two
books: bk. 3 in Steph. Bergler, 1715: new letters and frag-
ments were published by J. A. Wagner, 1798, E. E. Seiler, 1853.

Index in M. A. Schepers’ ed. 1905.

BOR CEASSICAL’ TEXTS 201

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS (wrote cire. A.D. 390).

Rerum gestarum libri, originally in 31 books of which 14-31
survive, describing the events of the years A.D. 353-378.

The only factors of importance in the constitution of the text
are V= Vaticanus lat. 1873 written at Fulda gth cent. and brought
by Poggio to Italy εἶτα. 1417, and M, a Hersfeld codex, 9/1oth
cent., of which only six leaves survive, preserved at Marburg.

Ed. pr.: by Angelus Sabinus, Rome, 1474. Text based on
Vatic. Reginensis 1994. Glossary in A. W. Ernesti’s ed. 1772.

ANACREON of Teios (age of Polycrates d. 522 B.c.).

Only fragments survive preserved in such writers as He-
phaestion, Athenaeus, Stobaeus.

The Anacreontea are a collection of about 60 poems in the style
of Anacreon, made at a much later date. They are preserved in
an appendix to the Anthology of Constantinus Cephalas.

Ed. pr.: H. Stephanus, Paris, 1554.

Index in Bergk’s ed., Leipzig, 1834 ; Anacreontea, L. Weber,
Géottingen, 1895 ; C. Preisendanz, Leipzig, 1912.

ANDOCIDES (born a little before 440 8. c.).

Orations: (1) Περὶ τῶν Μυστηρίων. (2) Περὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ Καθόδου.
(3) Περὶ τῆς πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους Εἰρήνης. (4) Κατὰ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου. The
last is certainly spurious.

Q=Ambrosianus D 42, 14th cent. Remaining codd. are the
same as in Antiphon with the exception of N.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Orationes Rhet. Graec. 1513.

Index : Forman, Oxford, 1897.

ANTHOLOGIA GRAECA, various collections of Epigrams.

(1) Anthologia Planudea in 7 bks., a collection made by a monk
Planudes in 14th cent. His autograph MS. survives in cod.
Marcianus 481.

Ed. pr. : I. Lascaris, Florence, 1494.

(2) Anthologia Palatina in 15 bks., bks. 1-12 preserved in
Palatinus 23, 11th cent. (at Heidelberg), the second half of which
containing 13-15 is at Paris=suppl. nr. 384 (v. s.v. Palatinus in
Index). This collection was made by Constantinus Cephalas
(circ. A.D. 917) and consists of 15 bks. In it are incorporated

202 AUTHORITIES

previous anthologies by Meleager, Philippos, and Agathias. The
codex was first used by Salmasius in 1607, but its contents were
not printed as a whole till Brunck’s Analecta, Strassburg,
1776.

Index in F. Jacobs’ ed. 1814, vol. xiii.

ANTHOLOGIA LATINA, <A collection of short poems made in
the first half of the 6th cent. ἃ. Ὁ. in the Vandal kingdom of
Africa.

It is difficult to determine the original compass of the work
since such collections were subject to expansion or contraction at
the hands of subsequent copyists. Baehrens’ view (Poetae Lat.
Min., vol. iv) that it was in two volumes, the first containing the
older writers, the second the later, is not now generally held.
The most important MSS. are: A=Salmasianus, given to
Salmasius by Jean Lacurne about 1609, now Paris. 10318, an
uncial MS. of the 7th cent. which has lost the first eleven qua-
ternions. This MS. seems to give the collection in its truest form,
but it is impossible to ascertain what poems the lost quaternions
contained. A number of copies of this MS. made in the 17th
cent. are still in existence (e.g. one by Isaac Vossius). The
second best MS., S=Bellovacensis, is now lost and its character
is only known from an edition of Epigrams published by Binetus
in 1579. It contained a number of poems by Petronius which are
absent in A. Other important MSS. are B=Thuaneus siue
Paris. 8071, gth cent., which contains 73 of the Salmasian poems,
one by Catullus (62) and some by Martial. L=Lipsiensis Rep.
I. 74, 9/1oth cent. W=Vossianus L. Q. 86, 9th cent. Minor
excerpts are often appended to the MSS. of the greater poets,
e.g. in E=Vossianus L. F. 111, gth cent., a MS. of Ausonius.

The collection probably came into Europe through Spain,
which was closely connected with the Vandal kingdom. The
most famous poem which it contains is the Peruigilium Veneris.

ANTIPHON (d. 411 B.c.).

(1) Κατηγορία φαρμακείας Kara τῆς Μητρυιᾶς. (2), (3), (4) Terpa-
λογίαι. (5) Περὶ τοῦ “Hpwoou φόνου. (6) ἹΠερὶ τοῦ χορευτοῦ.

The two chief MSS. are A=Crippsianus (v. s.v. Isaeus) and
N=Bodleianus Misc. 208, 14th cent. These are of equal value
and descend from a common archetype. B=Laurentianus plut.

BOK CLASSICAL, TEXTS 203

4. τι, 15th cent., the parent of many later MSS., is probably a
copy of A,

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Orationes Rhet. Graec. 1513.

Index: Van Cleef, Ithaca, New York, 1895.

ANTONINUs, s.v. Marcus AuRELIUS ANTONINUS.

APOLLONIUS RHODIUS (circ. 295-215 B.c.).

Epic, ᾿Αργοναυτικά in 4 bks.

Two editions were published by Apollonius. The surviving
MSS. preserve the second and nothing is known of the first except
for a few quotations in the Scholia. MSS. in two classes headed
by (τ) L=Laurentianus 32. 9, 11th cent., containing also the plays
of Aeschylus (M) and Sophocles (L). (2) G=Guelferbytanus,
13th cent., and L 16=Laurentianus 32. 16, 13th cent. ‘These pre-
serve a distinct tradition and their text agrees with the quotations
given in the Etymologicon Magnum. The archetype must therefore
be as old as the 4th or 5th cent. Papyrus fragments of bk. 1 in
Amherst ii. 16, and of bks. 3 and 4 (2nd/3rd cent. A.p.) in
Grenfell and Hunt, Oxvrhynchus Pap. iv. 690-2. Scholia by
Lucillus, Sophocles, and Theon, commentators of the age of
Tiberius.

Ed. pr.: I. Lascaris, Florence, 1496.

Index in Wellauer’s ed., Leipzig, 1828.

APPIAN (circ. A.D. 160).

ἹῬωμαϊκά originally in 24 bks., though probably not completed.
The surviving portions are bk. 6 (Ἰβηρική), 7 (ἰΔννιβαϊκή),
8 (Λιβυκή), τι (ξυριακή), τῷ (Μιθριδάτειος), g (Ἰλλυρική : forming
the second half of the book), 13-17 (Ἐμφύλια). There are frag-
ments of the first half of g (Macedonia) and the Prooemium to
4 (Κελτική). The Παρθική appended in the MSS. to the Συριακή
is, as shown by Xylander and Perizonius, a Byzantine forgery
based upon Plutarch.

The excerpts in the surviving MSS. have been made on dif-
ferent principles, according as whole books or isolated passages
from a large number of books have been selected.

V=Vat. gr. 141, 11th cent., is the only trustworthy authority
for Hisp., Hann., Pun. It contains also Prooem. and Celt. in
a different and later (12th cent.) handwriting. Prooem., Illyr., Syr.,
Mith., Bell. Ciu. are contained in a group of related MSS. known

204 AUTHORITIES

as O, for which the best members are B=Ven. Marc. 387,
15th cent., V=Vat. gr. 134., 14/15th cent. There is an inferior
class known as 7, whose evidence is sometimes of value. In the
middle of the 15th cent. the greater part of the surviving text
was translated into Latin by Piero Candido Decembrio who used
a MS. similar to those of the O-group. There are numerous
manuscripts of passages excerpted from the different books.

Ed. pr.: C. Stephanus, Paris, 1551 ; Latin translation, 1472.

Lucius APULEIUS of Madaura (Africa) (fl. cire. A.D. 155).

(1) Metamorphoseon libri XI. (2) Apologia. (3) Florida (4 bks.).
(4) de Platone et eius dogmate (3 bks., the 3rd probably spurious).
(5) de deo Socratis. (6) de mundo. {The περὶ ἑρμηνείας is spurious. |

MSS. in two groups. (1) Containing Met., Apol., and Filor., in
which all are descended from F= Laur. 68, 2, 11th cent. (containing
also Tac. Ann. xi-xvi and the Histories). It has the subscriptio |
after bk. ix of Met. ‘Ego Sallustius legi et emendaui Rome
felix. Olibio et Probino u. ας. cons, (i.e. A.D. 395) in foro Martis
controuersiam declamans oratori Endelechio. Rursus Constan-
tinopoli recognoui Caesario et Attico coss. (A.D. 397)” $¢=
Laur. 29. 2, the earliest copy of F, is often of use in passages
where F has since been altered or injured. (2) The second group
contains de αἰ, Socratis, Asclepius (spurious), de Platone, and de
mundo. ‘Their archetype, which is lost, has to be reconstructed
from (a) the best class, such as M=Monacensis 621, 12th cent.,
B = Bruxellensis 10054/6, 11th cent., and others, and from
(6) the worse, such as P = Parisinus 6634, 12th cent.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Floridus) 1688.

ARATUS (circ, 310-245 B.C.).

Pawopeva καὶ Διοσημεῖα in 1154 hexameters.

Best preserved in M= Marcianus 476, 11th cent., containing
critical signs, perhaps by Theon, a mathematician of 4th cent. A.D.
Schoha by Theon. There are numerous commentaries, the
earliest is by Hipparchus the astronomer (circ. 130 B.c.), the latest
by Leontius of the 7th cent. Translations by Cicero, Germanicus,
Avienus.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1499 (in Astronom. uelt.).

Index in Maass’ ed., Berlin, 1893.

PORD CLASSICAL TEXTS 205

ARISTOPHANES (circ. 450-385 B.c.). Eleven comedies.

MSS :—F=Fragmentum Fayoumense, 6th cent., contains Au.
1057-85, 1101-27. On vellum. R=Ravennas 137. 4 a, toth
cent. Scholia. V=Venetus Marcianus 474, 12th cent. Scholia.
A=Parisinus 2712, 13th cent. =cod. A in Sophocles and
Euripides. Scholia to Nud. and beginning of Ran. Γ =(r)
Laurentianus 31. 15, 14th cent. Contains four plays of Euripides
(D) and six of Aristophanes viz.: Ach., Eccl.-v. 1136, Eq., Au.
v. 1419, Vesp. (except v. 421-1397, 1494-end), Pax (except v. 377-
1298). Von Velsen has shown that part of this MS. is now in
the University Library at Leyden, i.e. (2) Vossianus Gr. F. 52
containing Aw. v. 1492-end, Lysist._v. 1034. This portion of
the MS. is sometimes quoted as L. Scholia. O=Lauren-
tianus Abbatiae olim Florentinae 2779. 140, 14th cent. Scholia.
A= Laurent. 91. 16, 15/16th cent. B= Paris..2715, 16th cent.
©—Paris. 2717, 16th cent.

Of the other MSS. that are occasionally quoted the best are :—
M=Anmbrosianus L 39 sup., 14th cent. P=Vaticanus Palatinus
128, 15th cent.

Several of the plays were recast by Aristophanes himself
(διασκευή, διασκευάζειν. The second version of the Wud. alone
survives. The earlier version was in existence in the time of
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (276 B.c.) (cf. Mub. Hypoth. vi).
Traces of remodelling can be seen in the present text, e.g. 696 ff,
937, 1105. Similarly the second Plutus is alone represented in
the MS. tradition, though fragments of the earlier play are ex-
tant. Two versions of the Pax and Thesm. are mentioned,
but in either case it was probably not a revision but a distinct
play upon the same subject that was produced. The
attempt to find traces of revision in the other plays has not
been successful.

The text of Aristophanes had suffered corruption in the pre-
Alexandrine period, e.g. the last scene of Ran. (1429-53), cf.
Ran. 153; Thesm. 80, 162; Plut.179. References to the ancient
learning are frequent in the Scholia (v. 2,77].

Of the 44 plays (4 of which were considered spurious in anti-
quity) only 1 survive, and these only in R, where the order is:
ha. Nubian, ως, Ach, Vesp., Pax, Au., Thésm:, Eeccl.,
Lysist. ‘There are traces of an alphabetical order in some inferior

206 AUTHORITIES

MSS. (Novati, Hermes, xiv. 461). The present order is perhaps
due to Symmachus (circ. A.D. 100) who probably made a selection
(v. p. 41), and is known to have compiled a commentary. The
fragment of a vellum MS. (ΕἸ containing 56 lines of Aw. shows
that in the 6th cent. A.p. the text did not differ appreciably from
that of the best MSS.

The MSS. and Suidas (who quotes Aristophanes more than
5,000 times) represent strains of the same tradition. The relations
which they bear to one another vary in the different plays, and
none of the attempts to make a rigorous classification have been
successful. Rand V are undoubtedly the best, but it is impossible
to rely on them entirely, e.g. Eg. 889 βαλ(λ)αντίοισι RV while the
true reading βλαυτίοισι is preserved in A and Suidas. Cf. Pax 758,
Thesm.557. Ris thesole authority for Pax 897 πλαγίαν καταβάλλειν
ἐς γόνατα κύβδ᾽ ἑστάναι: Eccl. 224 πέττουσι TOUS πλακοῦντας ὥσπερ καὶ
πρὸ τοῦ and ibid. 303 ἐν τοῖς στεφανώμασιν. In Eg. R is superior
to V; in Wud. their authority is equal; in Pax, Au., Ran. V is
somewhat better than R; in Vesp. Vis far superior. Of the remain-
ing MSS. the Paris A is the best, and is often found in alliance
withthe three Laurentian ΓΔΘ. V often leans to the side of Αγδθ
and, apart from the good readings which they occasionally pre-
serve, they serve to control the readings of R where V is absent.
The Paris MSS. B and C are not of high value; they contain
many futile emendations and interpolations. But they seem to
represent a real tradition akin to that of the Aldine, and occa-
sionally give good readings of their own; e.g. Vesp. 668 περιπε-
φθείς B: περιπεμφθείς RV. The Aldine edited by Musurus was
printed from a MS. which cannot now be identified. (Estensis
III. D. 8 of 14th cent. is known to have been in his possession.)
The Scholia which it contains are of the highest importance, and
its text cannot be wholly neglected though many of its readings
are obvious corrections. It occasionally preserves a good reading
which is lost in RV, e.g. ub. 1298 οὐκ ἐλᾷς ὦ σαμφόρα ; where RV
have οὐκ ἐλᾷς ὦ ἸΠασία ;

Scholia. The old scholia which alone are of any value are
contained in RVr. AOM and the Aldine contain old scholia, but
also later Byzantine notes. Such notes are based upon com-
mentaries by Triclinius, Tzetzes, Thomas Magister, and others,
and are of no value. The bulk of the old scholia is preserved in

SOR eEAS SICAL (TEATS 207

V. Only excerpts from this larger corpus are preserved in R (vid.
A. Rémer, Studien zu Ar. 1902).

Ed. pr. : Aldine, 1498, containing all but Zhesm., Lysist. The
Pax and Eccl. were not taken from the same source as the rest,
since there is a subscription printed after dues. Thesm. and
Lysist. were first published in the second vol. of B. Junta’s edition
in 1515. Their text was taken from the Ravennas.

Indexes: Sanxay, London, 1754; Holden, Oxomasticon’®,
Cambridge, 1902; Caravalla, Oxford, 1822; Dunbar, Oxford,
1883.

ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.c.). Works on philosophy and
science.

The numbers following each work in the list given below refer
to the page on which they are to be found in Bekker’s edition,
Berlin, 1831. Spurious works are marked by square brackets.
History of the text in Antiquity: Strabo, xill. 609 6 γοῦν ᾽Αρι-
στοτέλης τὴν ἑαυτοῦ (βιβλιοθήκην) Θεοφράστῳ παρέδωκεν, ᾧπερ Kal τὴν
σχολὴν ἀπέλιπε, πρῶτος, ὧν ἴσμεν, συναγαγὼν βιβλία καὶ διδάξας τοὺς ἐν
Αἰγύπτῳ βασιλέας βιβλιοθήκης σύνταξιν. Θεόφραστος δὲ Νηλεῖ παρέδωκεν.
ὃ δ᾽ εἰς τὴν Σκῆψιν κομίσας τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν παρέδωκεν, ἰδιώταις ἀνθρώποις,
ot κατάκλειστα εἶχον τὰ βιβλία, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιμελῶς κείμενα" ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἤσθοντο
τὴν σπουδὴν τῶν ᾿Ατταλικῶν βασιλέων ὕφ᾽ οἷς ἦν ἡ πόλις, ζητούντων
βιβλία εἰς τὴν κατασκευὴν τῆς ἐν Περγάμῳ βιβλιοθήκης, κατὰ γῆς ἔκρυψαν
ἐν διώρυγί τινι ὑπὸ δὲ νοτίας καὶ σητῶν κακωθέντα ὀψέ ποτε ἀπέδοντο οἱ
ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ᾿Απελλικῶντι τῷ Tyiw πολλῶν ἀργυρίων Ta Te Ἀριστοτέλους
καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοφράστου βιβλία. ἣν δὲ ὁ ᾿Απελλικῶν φιλόβιβλος μᾶλλον
ἢ φιλόσοφος. διὸ καὶ ζητῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν διαβρωμάτων (the damaged
pages) εἰς ἀντίγραφα καινὰ μετήνεγκε τὴν γραφὴν ἀναπληρῶν οὐκ εὖ,
καὶ ἐξέδωκεν ἁμαρτάδων πλήρη τὰ βιβλία. συνέβη δὲ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν περι-
πάτων τοῖς μὲν πάλαι τοῖς μετὰ Θεόφραστον οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὅλως τὰ
βιβλία πλὴν ὀλίγων, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν, μηδὲν ἔχειν φιλοσοφεῖν
πραγματικῶς (systematically) ἀλλὰ θέσεις ληκυθίζειν" τοῖς δ᾽ ὕστερον, ἀφ᾽
οὗ τὰ βιβλία ταῦτα προῆλθεν, ἄμεινον μὲν ἐκείνων φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ ἀριστο-
τελίζειν, ἀναγκάζεσθαι μέντοι τὰ πολλὰ εἰκότα λέγειν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν. πολὺ δὲ εἰς τοῦτο Kal ἣ Ῥώμη προσελάβετο εὐθὺς γὰρ μετὰ τὴν
᾿Απελλικῶντος τελευτὴν Σύλλας ἦρε τὴν ᾿Απελλικῶντος βιβλιοθήκην, 6
τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἑλών, δεῦρό τε κομισθεῖσαν Τυραννίων τε ὃ γραμματικὸς

διεχειρίσατο φιλαριστοτέλης ὦν, θεραπεύσας τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς βιβλιοθήκης,

208 AUTHORITIES

καὶ βιβλιοπῶλαί τινες γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες, —
ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων συμβάινει τῶν εἰς πρᾶσιν γραφομένων βιβλίων
καὶ ἐνθάδε καὶ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ.

In the above story it is not necessary to believe more than that
the rich collector Apellikon bought a set of Aristotle’s works
which were represented to him by the vendors as the philosopher’s
private copy. It is unlikely that there was no other copy in
existence and that our present texts are descended from Apelli-
kon’s edition. The credence, however, given to the story in
antiquity shows the neglect into which Aristotle’s works had
fallen during the two centuries after his death.

(A) Locic. The Ὄργανον (a title not older than 6th cent. A.D.)
consisting of (1) Karyyopia (p. 1), (2) Περὶ Ἑ» ρμηνείας (p. 16), (3)
᾿Αναλυτικὰ πρότερα in 2 bks. (p. 24), (4) ᾿Αναλυτικὰ ὕστερα in 2 bks.
(p. 71), (5) Τοπικά in 8 bks. (p. 100), (6) Σοφιστικοὶ ἔλεγχοι (p.164),
an epilogue to (5).

Best MSS. are B= Marcianus 201, A.D. 955; A=Urbinas 35,
to/rith cent. ; C=Coislin. 330, 11th cent.; d=Lanr jee
το τ cent.; n=Ambros. L. 93, roth cent.

Commentaries, paraphrases, and translations :

On (1) Porphyrius, Dexippus, Simplicius, lohannes Philoponus,
Ammonius, Olympiodorus, Elias : Arabic and Armenian versions.

On (2) Stephanos, Ammonius: Syrian and Armenian versions.

On (3) Alexander Aphrodisiensis, lohannes Philoponus, Am-
monius, Themistius (?).

On (4) Themistius, Philoponus, Eustratius.

On (5), (6) Michael Ephesius.

(B) PsycHoLtocy AND METAPHYSIC.

(1) Περὶ Ψυχῆς in 3 bks. (p. 402). The best MS. is E=
Par. 1853, 10/11th cent. In bk. 3 it is defective and its
place is supplied by L=Vat. 253, 14th cent. There are traces
pointing to a second edition of the treatise in E and in P= Vat.
1339, 12/13th cent. There is a group of late MSS. of inferior
value.

Commentaries. Themistius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Sopho-
nias.

(2) Τὰ μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά in 14 bks. (p. 980). The name is not due
to Aristotle (who uses the term πρώτη φιλοσοφία) but to the later
editors of his works who catalogued the Metaphysics after the

FOR, CLASSICAL TEXTS 209

Physical writings, either because they thought that his scheme
implied this order or because it was convenient to use the trea-
tises for educational purposes in this order. The whole treatise
has been redacted from time to time. Bk. ἃ ἔλαττον, which follows
ain the MSS., was attributed by some ancient scholars to Pasicles
of Rhodes, nephew of Eudemus. Bk. 11 is spurious.

MSS.: E (vid. B. 1 supra), Ab=Laur. 87. 12, 12/13th cent.,
J=Vindob. phil. 100 shares most of the readings of E.

Commentaries, ὅσ. Alexander (spurious after Book Δ),
Asclepius (A-Z), Themistius (A), Syrianus (B'MN).

(3) Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν (p. 968). MSS. are recent: N= Vat. 258;
also in P=Vat. 1339, 12/13th cent.; W¢®=Urbinas 44; Z#=
Laurent. 87. 21.

[(4) Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, περὶ Ζήνωνος, περὶ Γοργίου. Lipsiensis 14th
cent.; Βδ-- Ν ίίσδαπιιβ 1302, 14th cent. Latin version by
Felicianus, who used a MS. akin to R®. |

(C) Eruics anp Potitics.

(1) Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια in τὸ bks. (p. 1094). Bekker selected
six MSS. of which the most important are: Kb=Laur. 81. 11,
toth cent.; Lb-= Par. 1854, 12/13th cent. ; Mb= Marc. 213, 14/15th
cent. (of little value, its occasional good readings only dating from
the Renaissance ; OP=Riccard. 46, 14th cent., is a similarly con-
taminated MS.); r=the old Latin version (ὃ by William of
Moerbecke). Index in Cardwell’s ed., 1828.

Commentaries, ὅσ. Aspasius (who shows that the text has not
altered substantially since the 2nd cent. a.p.), Michael Ephesius
on bk. 5, Eustratius, Heliodorus.

[(2) “H@iuxa Εὐδήμια in 7 bks. (p. 1214). Pb=Vat. 1342, 13th
cent.; Ce=Cantabrigiensis 1879, 13th cent. An inferior text
is given in ΝΡ (supra) and the Aldine. |

[(3) Ἠθικὰ μεγάλα in 2 bks. (p. 1181). Two groups: (1) the
best Κῦ (supra); (2) PbCeM?. |

[(4) (2) is followed in MSS. by the spurious Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ
κακιῶν (p. 1249): L> (supra); Fe= Laur. 7. 35, 14th cent. ; GHHe=
Matritenses 54 and roo. |

(5) Woda, 8 bks. (p. 1252). The text anterior to the
recensions which most MSS. exhibit can be recovered in part
from V™=Vat. 1298, 10/11th cent., containing palimpsest frag-

473 P

210 AUTHORITIES

ments of bks. 3 and 6, and from H*= Berolinensis- Hamiltonianus
397, 15th cent. The complete MSS. fall into two groups:
(a) M to which belong Ms=Ambrosianus B. ord. sup. 105, —
14th cent., and other late MSS.; f=the translation of William
of Moerbecke which represents a lost codex. (b) Π΄ which
includes P?=Coislinianus 161, 14th cent.; P®= Paris. 2026, 15th
cent. Of these groups M’ is slightly the better.

Displacements in Text. As early as the period of the Renais-
sance it was suggested that the books were given in the wrong
order in the MSS. It is possible that the 7th and 8th
books of the traditional order should follow the first 3 books.
Many scholars however hold to the traditional order.

(6) ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία. Brit. Mus. Pap. cxxxi, 1st/2nd cent. A.D.
Fragments in Berlin Pap. Ed. pr.: Kenyon, London, 1891.

Index in Sandys’ ed., 1893.

[(7) Οἰκονομικά in 3 bks. (p. 1343). The third book exists
only in two Latin versions, one by Durandus de Alvernia,
A.D. 1295. Best MS.: P?® or Ib= Paris. Coislin. 161, 14th cent. |

(D) Rueroric AnD Poetic.

(1) ‘Pytopxa in 3 bks. (p. 1354). Two families: (a) Ac=
Par. 1741, 10/11th cent. (b) Zb>=Vat. Pal. 23, 13th cent. and
younger MSS., chiefly useful in supplying the lacunas in A®.
William of Moerbecke’s translation stands midway between these
two classes. Index in Gaisford’s ed., 1820.

Commentaries, ὅς. Stephanus and Anonymus Neobarii of
Jate Byzantine origin. .

[(2) Ῥητορικὴ πρὸς ᾿Αλέξανδρον (p. 1420) has been attributed to
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, circ. 380-320 B.c. V*=Palatinus
160; Be=Urbinas 47. |

(3) Περὶ ποιητικῆς (p. 1447). Ac=Paris. 1741, 10/11th cent.,
generally held to be the archetype of all other MSS. Ar.=Arabic
version derived from a lost Syriac translation of the Greek text.
It implies a Greek text earlier that that of Ae and of different
descent. Its value is not great.

E) NaTuRAL PHILosopuy.

(1) Περὶ φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως in 8 bks. (p. 184). Bk. 7 is spurious.
Best MSS.: E= Par. 1853, 10/11th cent. and J=Vindob. phil. 100.

BOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 211

Paraphrase by Themistius, Commentaries by Simplicius,
Philoponus.

(2) Ilept οὐρανοῦ. in 4 bks. (p. 268. MSS.: E and J.
Themistius, Simplicius.

(3) Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς in 2 bks. (p. 314). MSS.: E and
1. Philoponus.

(4) Μετεωρολογικά in 4 bks. (p. 338). MSS.: E and J.
Alexander, Philoponus, Olympiodorus.

(5) Αἱ περὶ τὰ ζῷα ἱστορίαι in 9 bks. (p. 486). The roth bk.
given by some MSS. is held by Spengel, though not by
Dittmeyer, to be a retranslation into Greek of the Latin version
of William of Moerbecke (circ. 1260). Bk. 7, which follows
bk. 9 in most MSS., is spurious. MSS.: (1) the best A?=
Marc. 208, 12/13th cent. ; (δ (or M)=Laurent. 87. 4, 14th cent.
(2) P(or V)=Vat. 1339, 15th cent.; D®=Vat. 262, r4th cent.
Excerpts in Pliny.

Index in Aubert and Wimmer’s ed., 1868.

(6) Περὶ ζῴων μορίων in 4 bks. (p. 639). MSS.: E (supra); P=
Vat. 1339, 15th cent.; S=Laurent. 81. 1, 14th cent. Different
version of iv. 69128 to end in Y= Vat. 261 (14th cent.).

Commentary by Michael Ephesius. Index in Langkavel’s ed.
Teubn. 1868.

(7) Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως in 5 bks. (p. 715). MSS.: EPS Y in (6)
supra; Z=Oxon. Coll. Corp. Chr. 108, r2th cent.

Commentary, Philoponus (more probably Michael Ephesius).

(8) Περὶ πορείας ζῴων (p. 704). MSS.: E, PS Y Z supra (7); U=
Vat. 260, 13/15th cent.

[(9) Περὶ ζῴων κινήσεως (p. 698), possibly genuine. MSS.:
E, P,S Y supra (7). |

(το) The Parua Naturaha, a collection of small treatises, viz. :
(a) περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν (p. 436), (b) περὶ μνήμης καὶ ἀναμνήσεως
(Ρ. 449), (C) περὶ ὕπνου καὶ ἐγρηγόρσεως (Pp. 453), (4) περὶ ἐνυπνίων καὶ
τῆς καθ᾽ ὕπνον μαντικῆς (p. 458), (€) περὶ μακροβιότητος καὶ βραχυβιότητος
(Ρ. 464). (ἢ περὶ νεότητος καὶ γήρως (p. 467), (g) περὶ ζωῆς καὶ
θανάτου (p. 467), (h) περὶ ἀναπνοῆς (p. 470).

Commentaries: Alexander (de Sensu), Michael Ephesius,
Sophronius.

MSS. in two classes. (1) E (supra): its text ends at 464618;
M=Urbinas 37, 12/13th cent.; Y=Vat. 261, 14th cent. (2)

P 2

212 AUTHORITIES

L=Vat. 253, 14th cent., and others. The second group presents
a ‘doctored’ text in which the roughnesses of the original have
been smoothed over. After 46418 the groups are best repre-
sented by (1) M and Z=Oxoniensis coll. C.C.C. 108, 12th cent.,
and (2) L and S=Laurent. 81. 1, 14th cent.

[(11) Περὶ φυτῶν in 2 bks. (p. 814). This is probably a
treatise by Nicholas of Damascus. The present Greek text is a
late translation of a Latin version of this work made in the 13th
cent. from an Arabic version. MS.: Ne=Marc. 215.] Ed. pr.
in Geoponica, Basel, 1539.

[(12) Περὶ κόσμου (p. 391). MSS.: O=Vat. 316; P= Vat. 1330,
12/13th cent., and others. It is probably written by a Stoic and
addressed to Tib. lulius Alexander, praefect of Egypt in
A.D. 67. It has been freely adapted by Apuleius in his De
Mundo. }

[(13) Περὶ πνεύματος (p. 481). L= Vat. 253 and others. |

[(14) Περὶ χρωμάτων (p. 791). E,M=Urb. 37, Ρ,1..}

[(15) Περὶ ἀκουστῶν (p. 800). Ma= Paris. Coislin. 173, 15th cent. |

[(16) Φυσιογνωμονικά (p. 805). The best is L@= Marc. 263; I°=
Laur. 57. 33; K®=Mare. app. 4. 58.

[(17) Περὶ θαυμασίων ἀκουσμάτων (p. 830). S*= Laur. 60. 19 and
many mutilt. |

[(18) MpoBAnpara (p. 859), a collection of problems with answers
by the later Peripatetics. Y®= Par. 2036, roth cent.; C*= Laur.
87.4; X*=Vat. 1283. |

[(19) Μηχανικά (p. 847). MSS. late and infected by Scholia:
P=Vat. 1339, 12/r3th cent.; W*=Urb; 44; ἌΞΕΙ τ
15th cent., and Bernensis 402. Latin version by Leonicenus. |

[(20) ᾿Ανέμων θέσεις καὶ προσηγορίαι (p. 973), Said to be an extract
from Aristotle’s Περὶ σημείων. K® (16 supra). |

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1495-1498. Index: Bonitz in vol. v of Berlin
ed., 1870.

FLavius ARRIANUS (circ. A.D. 95-175).
(1) ᾿Ανάβασις ᾿Αλεξάνδρου in 7 bks. (2) Scripta minora, viz.

vee Κυνηγετικός, ἸΠερίπλους Ἐὐξείνου πόντου, Téxvn τακτική, “Exrages
τ᾽ ᾿Αλανῶν. (3) Διατριβαὶ ᾿Ἐπικτήτου in 8 bks. of which 1-4 sur-
vive, ᾿Εγχειρίδιον Ἐπικτήτου.
In the Anabasis the chief codex is A= Vindobonenais histor.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 213

Gr. 4 bombycinus, 12/13th cent. It is thought to be the arche-
type of all the rest since the loss of an entire page explains the
lacuna which is common: to all MSS. in Avab. vii. 12. 7. The
text cannot be based wholly on A which is mutilated at the
beginning. Most of the apographs were made before A was
corrected. These are in two classes. (a) B=Parisinus Gr.
1753, 15th cent. ; C=Constantinopolitanus in the Library of the
Seraglio, 15th cent. (ὁ) A large number of MSS. arranged in
three groups. There are excerpts in Vat. Gr. 73 and in other
MSS. In the Ἰνδική A and B are best; in Κυνηγετικός and
Περίπλους Vaticano-Palatinus 398; in the Τακτική and "Exragis
a Berne codex. In (3) Bodleianus (Saibantinus) Misc. Gr. 251,
12th cent.

Edd. pr.: For the Azabasts Lat. Trans.: B. Facius, Pesaro,
1508. Ed. pr. of Gk. text: Trincavelli, Venice, 1535; of the
TlepizAovs: Gelenius, Basel, 1533: of (3) Trincavelli, Venice,
1535. Ihe remaining treatises were published in the 17th cent.

Q. ASCONIUS PepiAnus (9 B.c.—aA.D. 76).

Historical Commentary on 5 speeches of Cicero. The text
depends on a MS. (? of gth cent.) discovered by Poggio at
St. Gall in 1416. Copies of this were taken by his friends
Bartolomeo da Montepulciano and Zomino of Pistoia. Lauren-
tianus 54. 5 is an early transcript of B.’s copy. Z.’s autograph
copy survives in Pistoriensis, Forteguerri 37. Poggio’s own
copy is identified by the best critics with Matritensis ro. 81 (cf.
Manilius). The lost Sangallensis must be reconstructed mainly
from this. A commentary on the Verrines was attributed to A.
until proved spurious by Madvig.

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1477.

ATHENAEUS of Naucratis (age of Commodus).

Δειπνοσοφιστῶν in 15 books of which all survive save 1, 2, and
part of 3. Extracts are preserved from these missing books.

All MSS. are derived from A= Marcianus Venetus 447, 1oth
cent., brought by Ioannes Aurispa to Venice from Constanti-
nople in 1423. All other MSS. are apographs of this made
in 15th or 16th cent., e.g. B= Laurentianus pl. 60. 1; P= Pala-
tinus (Heidelbergensis) 47, written in 1505-6 by Paolo Degan

214 AUTHORITIES

of Venice. There is an Epitome of the whole work made from
a codex which must have been similar to A. It is best given in
C=Paris. 3056, written by Hermolaus Barbarus in 1482, and
E=Laur. 60.2.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1514.

Index glossarum in Kaibel’s ed., Leipzig, 1890.

AULUS GELLIUS (fl. circ. 4.0. 150).

Noctes Atticae in 20 bks. Bks. 1-7 depend on A=the Vatican
palimpsest (Vat.-Pal. 24), 6/7th cent., and on MSS. of 12/13th
cent. Bks. 9-20 on Leidenses-Vossiani, X=F. 112, 10th cent.,
and F. 7. 2, 14th cent., the Vaticani-Reginenses, O=597, roth
cent., and N=1646, 12th cent., and others. The inferior MSS.
which contain the entire work are badly interpolated and are of
little use save for bk. 7, for the chapter headings of bk. 8, and
the last sections of bk. 20.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Proust), 1681.

Decimus Macnus AUSONIUS (circ. a.p. 310-390, tutor to
Gratian).

(1) Praefatiunculae. (2) Domestica. (3) Ephemeris, i.e. totius
diet negotium (236 lines in various metres). (4) Parentalia (30).
(5) Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium. (6) Epitaphia
heroum (26). (7) A collection of Eclogues. (8) Cupido cructatus.
(9) Poems (fragmentary) to a German captive woman named
Bissula. (10) Mosella (483). (11) Ordo nobilium urbium. (12)
Technopaegnion. (13) Ludus septem sapientum. (14) De xu
Caesaribus. (15) Fasti consulares (fragment). (16) Griphus
ternarit numert. (17) Cento nuptialis. (18) Epistulae (xxv). (19)
Epigrams (cxii). There are also, in prose, Gratiarum actio ad
Gratianum, and Periochae to Homer.

Two collections are preserved in the existing MSS. : (1) The
Tilianus collection preserved in a series of late MSS. whose
best representative is T= Leidensis-Vossianus Q. 107, 15th cent.
(called the Tilianus, from a former owner Du Tillet). It has
been noticed that this collection contains no work later than the
year 383 and it may represent an arrangement of the poems by
the author himself. (2) The Vossianus collection preserved in V=
Leidensis-Vossianus 111, 9th cent., a MS. in a Lombardic hand.

This collection must have been made after the poet’s death,

POR CLASSICAL \ TEXTS 215

possibly by his son Hesperius. These two collections do not
contain all the poems: e.g.the Periochae rest upon the Paris
collection (e. g. Parisinus 8500, 14th cent., and Harleianus 2613,
15th cent.). The Mosella is contained in a collection of excerpts
found in Sangallensis 899, roth cent., and Bruxellensis 5369/73,
t2th cent.

Ed. pr. by B. Girardinus, Venice, 1472.

Index in Delphin ed. (J. Floridus), 1688.

AVIANUS [F Lavtus] (age of the Antonines).

42 fables founded mainly upon Babrius. MSS. exceedingly
numerous. Among the best are: T=Treverensis 1464, 1oth
cent. ; C= Par. 5570, 1oth cent; O=Oxon. Bod. Auct. F. 2. 14,
11th cent.

Ed. pr.: Strassburg, 1515 (according to Fréhner).

Index in Ellis’ ed., Oxford, 1887.

Rurius Festus AVIENUS (proconsul of Africa, A.D. 366).

(1) Translation of Aratus Pawopeva (1878 hexameters), V=
Vindobonensis 111, toth cent.. and A=Ambrosianus D. 52 inf.,
15th cent., and ed. princeps (v. fra). (2) Descriptio orbis terrae
(1393 hex.), Ambrosianus, a lost codex Ortelianus, and ed. prin-
ceps. (3) Ora Maritima (joo senarii) and a poem to Flavianus
Myrmeicus are found only in the ed. pr.

Ed. pr. by G. Valla, Venice, 1488.

BABRIUS (end of 1st, beginning of 2nd cent. a.p.).

123 fables (μυθίαμβοι Αἰσώπειοι) arranged in 2 bks.

A=Athous, Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 22087, containing 123 fables.
It was discovered by Menoides Minas in 1843. V=Vaticanus
Gr. 777, late 15th cent., a corpus of 245 fables by various authors.
G=Gudianus, 16th cent., containing fab. 12. T=Tabulae ceratae
Assendelftianae, wax tablets of the 3rd cent. written from dicta-
tion by a Palmyrene schoolboy. They contain 14 fables, part of
which are by Babrius. The text is most corrupt. (/ournal of
Hellenic Studies, xiii. 292.)

Besides these MSS. there are subsidiary authorities for the
text in (1) Quotations in the Lexicon of Suidas; (2) Paraphrases ;
(3) Imitations, e.g. by Avianus, Aphthonius, &c. A number of
forgeries by Minas were published by G. C. Lewis in 1859.

216 AUTHORITIES

Ed. pr. of the Athoan collection, Boissonade, Paris, 1844.
Index in Rutherford’s ed., 1883, and in Crusius’ ed., Leipzig,
1897.
BACCHYLIDES (circ. 512 8.c.—exiled from Ceos circ. 452 B.c.).
Odes : 13 ἐπίνικοι, 6 διθύραμβοι, preserved in a papyrus, dating
probably from the st cent. B.c., discovered in Egypt, and acquired
by the British Museum in 1896 (Brit. Mus. Pap. pccxxx111).
Ed. pr.: Kenyon, London, 1897.
Index in Kenyon: Blass, 1904; Jebb, 1905.

BION of Smyrna (end of 2nd cent. B.c., younger contemporary
of Theocritus).
᾿Ἐπιτάφιος ᾿Αδώνίδος (98 hexam.).
The tradition is the same as that of the works of Theocritus.
V=Vaticanus 1824, 14th cent.; Tr.=Parisinus 2832, Demetrii
Triclinii. Fragments of poems are preserved in Stobaeus.
Ed. pr.: H. Goltzius, Bruges, 1565.
Index: Meineke’s ed., Berlin, 1856.

Caius Iutitus CAESAR (100-44 B.c.).

(x) Commentarii de bello Gallico, in 7 bks. (bk. 8 is by A. Hirtius).
(2) Comment. de bello ciuil, in 3 bks. The authorship of the
supplements to C.’s works, viz. Bellum Alexandrinum, B. Africa-
num, B. Hispaniense, is uncertain.

The bellum Gallicum is preserved in two traditions, which are
now distinct, though they are ultimately derived from the same
archetype. To (a) belong: A=Amstelodamensis 81 (Bongarsi-
anus), 9/1oth cent.; B and M= Parisienses 5763, 9th cent., and
5056, 11th cent. ; R= Vat. 3864, roth cent., and others. (ὁ) is best
represented by T=Par. lat. 5764 (Thuaneus), 11th cent.; U=
Vaticanus 3324 (Ursinianus), 11/12th cent. ‘The first class was
preferred by Nipperdey and others, while the second has found
a champion in Meusel. ‘The first class undoubtedly offers the
purer text, since the MSS. of the second have been gravely
interpolated at some period by a scholar who was an admirer of
Cicero. Both, however, must be considered in the constitution
of the text. For the other writings in the Corpus Caesarianum
the second class of MSS. is the sole authority. Cf. swpra, p. 131.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469. Lexicon Caesartanum, H. Meusel, 1884 ;
H. Merguet, 1884 ; R. Menge and 5. Preuss, 1885.

FOR CEASSICAL TEXTS 217

CAESIUS BASSUS (under Nero), editor of Persius.

His work De metris was published by Ianus Parrhasius in
1504 from a codex Bobiensis, in which it was attributed to
Fortunatianus. Lachmann was the first to detect the parts now
claimed for Bassus. The best copy of the Bobiensis (which is
now lost) is Neapolitanus IV. a. τι. The work De metris Hora-
tianis is not by B.

CALLIMACHUS (circ. 310-240 B.c.).

(1) Six hymns. (2) 63 ἐπιγράμματα preserved (except 5 and 6)
in the Anthology (q.v.). (3) Fragment of the Hecale preserved
on a wooden tablet in the Rainer collection. (4) Fragments of
the Aira and Ἴαμβοι, Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, vii (1910),
ῬΡ’ Τὸ 544.

All MSS. are late and are probably descended from a Byzantine
collection of Hymns, including Homeric Hymns, Orpheus, and
Proclus. Along with the six hymns of C. were preserved some
scanty extracts from a commentary compiled by Sallustius in the
4th or 5th cent. a.p. From this three families descend: (1) the
most important (E), which contains the entire collection. To it
belong: m=Matritensis, Bibl. Nat. N. 24, written in A.D. 1464,
by Constantine Lascaris at Milan, and three others, one of which,
Laurent. 32. 45 (4), was mutilated in the portion containing Calli-
machus in order to serve as copy for the ed. pr. by Ianus Lascaris
in 1494. (2) The A-group, best represented by a=Vat. 1691.
This group does not contain the whole of the original Byzantine
sylloge, but only the Hymns of Call. and Orpheus. (3) The
F-group, consisting of r=Athous Laurae 587 and Ambrosi-
anus B. 98.

Ed. pr.: I. Lascaris, Florence, circ. 1497.

Index: O. Schneider’s ed., vol. ii, Leipzig, 1873.

T. CALPURNIUS Sicutus (under Nero), whose seven eclogues
are preserved in the same corpus with four by Nemesianus
(A.D. 284).

(1) The best class includes: N= Neapolitanus 380, 14/15th cent.;
G=Gaddianus 90. 12 inf., 15th cent. ; A=a lost MS. of Thaddeus
Ugoletus, of which a collation exists in Riccardianus 363, 15th
cent. (2) P=Parisinus 8049, 12th cent., containing as far as
Ecl. iv. 12, from which the vulgate text descends.

218 AUTHORITIES

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1471.
Index in C. E. Glaeser’s ed., 1842.

M. Porcius CATO (234-149).

(1) De Agri cultura, (2) Fragments of speeches, ἃς.

Lost Marcianus of which copies survive; and also a colla-
tion in Paris by Politian in a copy of the ed. pr. The
Marcianus was used by P. Victorius for his edition of 1541.
For the condition of the text v. p. 141.

Ed. pr. included in G. Merula’s Ret Rusticae Scriptores,
Jenson, Venice, 1472.

Index in H. Keil’s ed., 1884-1902.

Cassius Dio, s.v. Dro.

Caius VALERIus CATULLUS (d. circ. 54B.c.), 116 poems survive.

Numerous MSS. of 14/15th cent. all ultimately descended from
a MS. discovered at Verona early in the 14th cent. Of these
the best are: G=Sangermanensis Par. 14137, A.D. 1375; O=
Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon. Lat. 30, 14th cent.; R=Vat. Ottob.

1829 (Romanus), late 14th cent. The tradition has suffered — ἶ

greatly from Renaissance interpolators. Traces of another tradi-
tion are seen in T=Paris. 8071 (Thuaneus), which preserves
Ixii as part of an Anthology of Latin poetry.
Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472; with Tibull., Prop., and Statius Si/uae.
Index in Delphin ed., 1685; Ellis’ ed., Oxford, 1878; M. N.
Wetmore, New Haven, 1912.

CEBES.

The πίναξ, or allegorical description of life from the standpoint
of the Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, is probably the
work of an anonymous author belonging to the Ist cent. Α.Ὁ.
The end is mutilated and survives only in an Arabic paraphrase.

The text, which is gravely corrupted, rests mainly on: A=
Parisinus 858, 11th cent., ending at ch. 23. 2, after which its
place is best supplied by Vat. 112, 14th cent. Many late MSS.
The Lat. trans. by Ludovicus Odaxius of Padua is the sole
authority for a lost codex Urbinas.

Ed. pr.: Z. Callierges, Rome, ? 1515.

A. Corne_ius CELSUS (under Tiberius). Of his encyclopaedia
(Artes) bks. 6-13, De Medicina, alone survive. All MSS.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 219

come from the same archetype which had a lacuna in iv. 27.
The oldest are Vaticanus 5951, toth cent., and Laurentianus
73. 1, 12thcent. Parisinus 7028, 11th cent., contains excerpts.
Ed. pr.: Florence, 1478.
Index by G. Matthiae in the Leyden ed., 1785.

Marcus Tuttius CICERO (106-43 8. c.).
I. SPEECHES.

The criticism of Cicero’s speeches has been greatly advanced
of recent years by the researches of A. C. Clark, Peterson, and
others into the history of the text. As the speeches are not
arranged in chronological order in the groups in which they
are preserved in the MSS., it is convenient to survey some of
the principal MSS. before dealing with individual speeches.
The important MSS. which lie behind the present tradition are :

(a) The uwetus Cluniacensis, which contained Pro Milone, Pro
Cluentio, Pro Murena, Pro Sext. Roscio, Pro Caelio, belonging
possibly to 8th cent. or earlier. In the 15th cent. the Pro Sext.
Roscio and Pro Murena were copied by the scribes of =
Parisinus Lat. 14749, olim S. Victoris, 15th cent., a large MS.
of the orations drawn from many sources. The Cluntacensts
came into the possession of Poggio circa 1413 who brought it
to Italy, where his friend Bartolomeo da Montepulciano made
excerpts which have been preserved by the scribe of B=Laur.
54. 5. The Italian scholars copied from it the two new speeches
(Pro Sext. Rose. and Pro Muren.) which had been previously
unknown, but, asthe MS. was hard to read, contented themselves
with extracting variant readings from it in the other speeches.

(ὁ) The Sylloge Poggiana. In 1417 while at the Council of
Constance Poggio acquired the text of Pro Caecina, De Lege
Agraria i-iii, Pro (δ. Rabirio perd. reo, In L. Pisonem, Pro C.
Rabirio Post. Poggio always speaks of his own autograph copy,
and there is no justification for the belief that all these speeches .
were copied byhim from one and the same MS. The Pro Caecina
was copied from a MS. at Langres (Lingonensis) according to
the ‘subscription’ which still follows the speech, but the origin
of the other speeches in the sylloge is unknown. Poggio’s own
MS. has disappeared, but through the copies made from it
(δ 3 mmfra), it is now the sole authority (except for palimpsest

220 AUTHORITIES

fragments) for Pro Rosc. Com. and the speeches Pro C. Rabirio
and Pro R. Post. Additional evidence for the text of the other
speeches was found during the period of the Renaissance.

(c) The Pro Quinctio and Pro Flacco became known to the
Italians about 1405. Who discovered them and in what MS. he
discovered them is unknown. They were probably copied from
a French MS., since they are contained in the French MS.
Σ (v. supra).

(d) Codex Cluntacensis nunc Holkhamicus 387, 9th cent. This
codex contains in a more or less mutilated form the Catilinarian
speeches, Pro Q. Ligario, Pro rege Deiotaro, In Verrem ii,
bks. 2,3. It was discovered by Peterson in Lord Leicester’s
Library at Holkham, and, as has been shown by hin, is identical
with no. 498 in the twelfth-century catalogue of the Bibliotheca
Cluniacensis from which Poggio obtained the uetus Cluniacensis
described above. It is to be regarded as the primary source for
all the texts which it contains.

I. SpEEcHES: (a) First PERIop, 81-66 B.c.

1. Pro Quinctio (81 B.c.). P=Turin palimpsest containing
fragments only. The complete MSS. are all of the 15th cent. :
they exhibit two strains of descent. (τὴ From a codex now lost
which was discovered by the Italians circ. 1405. From this
descend the French family, whose best representative is =
Parisinus 14749, olim S. Victoris. (2) From another lost codex
whose readings are preserved in the second hand of b=S. Marci
255, Flor. Bibl. Nat. I. iv. 4. The ordinary Italian MSS., e.g.
x=S. Marci 254, Flor. Bibl. Nat. 1. iv. 5, give atext which is the
result of a mixture of both these sources. The tradition is the
same as in the Pro Flacco.

2. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (80). All codd. are derived from
Poggio’s Cluniacensis, now lost, which was brought to Italy in
1413 or 1414. An earlier tradition survives in the Vatican
fragment. ‘The tradition is the same as in the Pro Murena.
Chief MSS. are :—% as in (1). Of the Italian MSS. the best are
A=Laur. 48. τὸ, 15th cent., and w= Perusinus E. 71, 15th cent.

3. Pro. Quinto Roscto Comoedo (date uncertain, ? 68). This,
together with Pro Caecina, De Lege Agraria i-iii, Pro Ὁ.
Rabirio perduellionis reo, In Pisonem, and Pro C. Rabirio
Postumo, descends from a copy made by Poggio from a MS.

Ok. Ciro ole AL. TEXTS 221

discovered in 1417. This ‘ Poggianum exemplar’ is lost and
can only be recovered from its copies, of which the chief are M=
Laur. Conv. Soppr. 13 (which is mutilated and now contains
only Pro Caecina, De Lege Agraria, and In Pisonem) ; 2=Laur.
48. 26, containing Pro Rosc. Com., Pro Rabirio p. r., and Pro
Rabirio Postumo; o=Oxoniensis Dorvill. 78; s=Senensis
H. vi. 12; m=Ambros. C. 96. Where M is defective Q is the
best MS.

4. Pro Marco Tulho (uncertain, ? 71 B.c.). Only fragments
survive, preserved in the Turin and Milan palimpsests, 4/5th cent.

5. The seven speeches Juz Verrem (70) have been preserved
in most of the MSS. in two groups, viz. (1) Diu. im Quint.
Caec., τ Act., 2 Act., i, iv, v, and (2) 2 Act. ii-iii. This division
must be due to some mutilation in an archetype or to a tendency
to group together the more interesting and least technical
speeches. The first advance in systematic criticism of the
text of group (1) was made in 1828 when Madvig arranged
the MSS. in two classes: X=the French group, Y=the Italian.
The MSS. of the X group are all mutilated. The chief are
R= Regius Parisinus 7774, 9th cent. (2 Act. iv, v); S=Parisinus
7775, 13th cent. (fragments of 2 Act. i and whole of iv, v); D= Pari-
sinus 7823, 15th cent., copied from S before the loss of 2 Act.i. Of
the Y-group the best MS. is p= Parisinus 7776, 11th cent., which
contains all the speeches. The early printed texts are all
based on inferior MSS. belonging to this group. The Y-text
in its best form is ancient and seems to have been used by
Quintilian.

In the second group (2 Act. ii, iii) the problem has been
changed by the discovery of C=the Cluniacensis (v. supra) and
by the proof that O=Lagomarsin. 42, nunc Flor. Bad. 2618, is
a copy made from C before it was mutilated in the 15th cent.
Further evidence for the readings in the mutilated portions of
C is afforded by a number of mediaeval collations. In these
speeches the Y-text rests mainly on C and its subsidiaries.
The inferior Y-text is presented by p and other codd.

Throughout all the speeches there are fragments of V=palim-
psestus Vaticanus Reginensis 2077, 3/4th cent., apparently
a composite MS. embodying various recensions, since its rela-
tion to the other MSS. constantly varies. In the earlier speeches

222 AUTHORITIES

it disagrees with the Y-group: in ii-iii it often agrees with HO,
though with strange differences in the order of words: in iy, v
it seems almost to be the parent of the Y-text.

(1) Diu. in QO. Caecilium, 1 Act.,2 Act. i. MSS. are S, D and
reports of old codices preserved by Lambinus (A) and Stephanus
(s) and fragments of V.

(3) 2 Act. iv-v. RS and H=excerpts from Harleianus 2682,
1oth cent., and fragments in V.

6. Pro M. Fonteio (?69). Fragments in Vat. palimpsest.
Best codex is V=tabularii Basilicae Vaticanae H. 25, gth
cent. (Cf. Pro Flacco, In Pisonem, and Philippics.)

7. Pro A. Caecina (69). Beside Mos (vide §3 supra), which give
the Poggian tradition, there is a separate tradition preserved in
T=Tegernseensis, nunc Monacensis 18787, 11th cent., and E=
Erfurtensis nunc Berolinensis 252, 12/13th cent.

(ὁ) Seconp PERIOD (66-59 B.C.).
8. De imperio Cn. Pompei (66). P=Turin palimpsest. The
best family consists of H= Harleianus 2682, 11th cent., E and T
(§ 7 supra), t= Hildesheimensis, 15th cent., a copy made from T
while T was still entire.
g. Pro A. Cluentio Habito (66). P=Turin palimpsest. The
MS. tradition largely depends on the lost uetus Cluniacensis
(v. supra I (a)), whose text has to be inferred from £=2nd hand
in Paris. 14749, 15th cent. B=excerpts by B. da Monte-
pulciano. M=Laur. 51. 10, a mutilated MS. of rith cent. in
a Lombardic (Beneventan) hand, presents a different tradition.
10. Delege Agraria contra Rullum, 3 speeches. Two sources:
(1) The Syloge Poggiana, Mosw v. supra ὃ 3; (2) E (ὃ 7 supra)
and later MSS.
11. Pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo (63). P and V=Vatican
palimpsests. Otherwise text rests entirely on the Syi/loge Pog-
giana, V. supra ὃ 3, e.g. mos and Q=Laur. 48. 26 (Lag. 26).

12. 715 Catilinam, 4. speeches (63). C=Cluniacensis at Holkham
(supra § 1 (d)). A=Ambrosianus C. 29 inf., roth cent. V=Vossia- —
nus Lat. O. 2, 11th cent. These form one class. There are
besides two inferior classes.

13. Pro L. Murena (62). All codd. are late and derived from

HOR CLASSICAL’ TEXTS 223

the Cluniacensis ὃ τ (a) supra. The tradition is the same as in
the Pro Rosc. Amerino.

14. Pro P. Cornelio Sulla (62). T, E(§ 7 supra). E only contains
δ 81 to end. T is the chief authority.

15. Pro Archia (62). E (§ 7 supra), and G=Gemblacensis-
Bruxellensis 5352, 12th cent., which is undoubtedly the best MS.

16. Pro L. Flacco(59). The lacunae at the beginning are partly
recovered from the scholiasta Bobiensis. M=fragmentum
Mediolanense (part of ὃ 5). P=frag. Peutingerianum (δὲ 75-83,
known from Cratander’s edition). W=cod. tab. Basilicae Vati-
canae H. 25, gth cent., containing δὲ 39-54. Otherwise the tradi-
tion is the same as in the Pro Quinctio and depends mainly on %.
(c) THrrp ῬΕΕΙΟΡ (57-52 B.C.).

17. The four speeches Post reditum, i.e. Cum senatut, Cum
populo, De domo sua, De haruspicum responso. P= Parisinus
7794, 9th cent. G=Gemblacensis-Bruxellensis 5345, 12th cent.

18, 19. Pro P. Sestio and In P. Vatinium (56). Best MSS. are
P and G (as in § 17).

20. Pro M. Caelio (56). Fragments in A T=Ambrosian and
Turin palimpsests. Besides these there are two lines of tradition :
(1) The uetus Cluniacensis of Poggio as known from Σ and B
(v. I (a) supra). This text is closely related to that of the palim-
psests. (2) Ρ (ὃ 17 supra) and its descendants.

21. De Prouincits consularibus (56). PG (§ 17 supra).

22. Pro L. Cornelio Balbo (56). PG (§ 17 supra).

23. In L. Pisonem (55). P=Turin palimpsest, V (δ τό supra).
There is valuable evidence in Asconius. E (δ 7 supra). Other
MSS. are descended from Poggio’s ‘ Sylloge’ (ὃ 3 supra).

24. Pro Cn. Plancio (54). T and E (§ 7 supra).

25. ProM. Aem.Scauro(54). Ambrosianand Turin palimpsests.

26. Pro C. Rabirio Postumo (54). Text rests entirely on
Poggio’s copy (cf. § 3 supra). Chief MSS. are Qmos.

27. Pro 7. Annio Milone (52). P=Turin palimpsest. The
best family of MSS. includes H=Harleianus 2682, 11th cent.,
identified by Clark with the Basilicanus or Hittorpianus, T and
E (§ 7 supra), W=the lost Werdensis, used by F. Fabricius.

(d) FourtH PERtop (46-43 B.C.).

28. Orations before Caesar, i.e. Pro M. Marcello (46), Pro Q.

Ligario (46), Pro rege Detotaro (45). MSS. fall into three classes.

224 AUTHORITIES

Of the best class the most important member is H (v. ὃ 27 supra). |

To the same class belong A=Ambrosianus, roth cent., V=
Vossianus Lat. O. 2, 11th cent.

29. Philippics (44-43), 14 speeches. Best MS. is V=tabularii
Basilicae Vaticanae H. 25, gth cent. The others all spring
from a mutilated archetype.

Ed. pr. of Philippics, Rome, circ. 1470.

First collected edition of the Speeches, Rome, circ. 1471.

Index to Speeches: H. Merguet, 1877.

ANCIENT COMMENTARIES ON THE SPEECHES.

1. By QO. Asconius Pedianus (written between 54 and 57 A. D.)
on the In Pisonem, Pro Scauro, Pro Milone, Pro Cornelio.
The commentary on the Diuinatio in Caecilium, Verrines Act. i
and Act. 11. I-2. 35 is not by Asconius. It is therefore usually
referred to as pseudo-Asconian. 2. The Scholia Bobiensia
(? 5th cent. A. D.), discovered by Mai in the Frontonian palim-
psest from Bobbio (now at Rome and Milan, Vat. lat. 5750 and
Ambros. E. 147. sup.), comment on the Pro Flacco, Cum Senatui,
Cum populo, Pro Plancio, Pro Milone, Pro Sestio, In Vatinium,
Pro Archia, Pro Sulla, and several lost speeches. 3. Scholiasta
Gronovianus. Notes on the third and fourth Catilinarian and
mutilated notes on ten other speeches contained in Vossianus
quart. 138, roth cent., a MS. once in the possession of Gronovius.
Of little value.

11. RueToricaL WRITINGs.

1. Ad C. Herennium de arte rhetorica, 5. ν. Herennius.

2. De inuentione rhetorica in 2 bks. Codd. are very numerous.
The best are H= Herbipolitanus Mp. m. f. 3, 9th cent. P= Paris.
7714, 9th cent. These belong to a group of MSS. which are
defective in i. 62-76 and ii. 170-175. Commentary by Marius
Victorinus (4th cent.) preserved in D= Darmstadiensis, 7th cent.

Ed. pr. of (1), (2) Venice (N. Jenson), 1470.

3. De Oratore (55 B.c.). Only a mutilated text of the de
Oratore and Orator was known till 1422 when Gerard Landriani
discovered a MS. containing a complete text of these treatises
and also of the Brutus at Lodi (Laus Pompeia). This codex
Laudensis has since disappeared, and it is uncertain whether it
was copied throughout or only used to supply the deficiencies

POR "CLASSICAL TEXTS 225

in the current text. The tradition of the Laudensis is best given
by P= Palatinus 1469 and O=Ottobonianus 2057 (dated 1425).
Of the codd. mutili the best are H=Harleianus 2736, toth
cent., A=Abrincensis 238, roth cent., E=Erlangensis 848, roth
cent., and R=Vat-Reg. 1762 which contains excerpts made by
Hadoard (see p. 71 note).

Ed. pr.: Subiaco, 1465.

4. Partitiones Oratoriae (54). P=Par. 7231, p=Par. 7696,
both of the roth cent. Late MSS., e. g. Erlangenses 848, 858, 863.

5. Brutus (46), unknown till the discovery of the Laudensis
(v. supra), a copy of which survives perhaps in F=Florentinus-
Magliabecchianus I. I. 14, written in 1422 or 1423. Β, ΟΞ
Ottoboniani 1592 (A. D. 1422) and 2057 (A.D. 1425), and others
are remoter descendants of the Laudensis.

Ed. pr. (with Orator): Rome, 1469.

6. Orator (46). The codd. mutili all descend from the Abrin-
censis 238, roth cent. The complete tradition is derived from
the Laudensis (supra) which is represented by F and O as in
Brutus and by P= Palatinus 1469.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469.

7. Topica (44). Twoclasses: (1) O=Ottobonianus 1406, toth
cent. (2) Vossiani 84 (A), and 86 (B), both roth cent., and
others. There is a commentary by Boethius to 20, 77.

8. De optimo genere Oratorum (date uncertain). Sangallensis
Bio, t1th cent..(G or d), P=Paris. 7347, 11th cent., and a
number of late MSS.

III, PHttosopHic WRiTINGs.

1. De Re publica (between 54 and 51), in 6 bks. The only
MS. is the Vatican palimpsest 5757 published by Mai in 1822.
For Sommnium Scipionts v. MAcrosius.

2. De Legibus, in 3 bks. (probably a posthumous work).
Vossiani A and B, asin Topica, supra, H= Leidensis (Heinsianus)
lat. 118, 11th cent. There are excerpts made by Hadoard in
the gth cent. (cf. p.71 zoe).

3. Paradoxa Stotcorum ad M. Brutum (46). Vossiani as in
Topica and Vindob. 189 as in Acad. Pr., infra.

Ed. pr.: Mainz, 1465, with De Officiis.

473 Q

226 AUTHORITIES

4. Academica (45), originally published in two editions. (1)
Academica Priora, in 2 bks., of which bk. 2 (qui insert-
bitur Lucullus) survives, and (2) Acadenuca Postertora, in 4
bks. of which bk. 1 survives. Ac. Post. are preserved in
late MSS. cnly, e.g. Paris. 6331 (Puteaneus), 15th cent., and
a Gedanensis. All are from the same archetype. For the Ae.
Pr. the authorities are:—the two Vossiani as in Topica, V=
Vindobon. 189, roth cent. The textual tradition of the Ac. Pr.
is the same as that of De Nat. Deorum, De Diuinatione, De
Fato, Paradoxa, Timaeus, and De Legibus.

5. De finibus bonorum et malorum, in 5 bks. (45). The
best family include A=Vat-Pal. 1513, 11th cent., B=Vat-Pal.
1525, 15th cent., E=Erlangensis 38, 15th cent., and the readings
of a similar MS. noted in the margin of Cratander’s edition of
1528. They and the deteriores descend from a recent and
faulty archetype. All show a lacuna at i. 22.

6. Tusculanarum disputationum, libri v (45-44). G=Gudianus
294, 9th cent., R= Parisinus 6332, gth cent., V= Vat. 3246, roth
cent. There is a large group of inferior MSS., e.g. D=Bon-
nensis 140 (Duisburgensis) ? 13th cent. Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469.

7. De Natura Deorum, in 3 bks. (44). Same tradition as the
Academica Priora, supra.

8. Cato maior de Senectute (44). P=Paris. 6332, 9th cent.
V=Vossianus O. 79, gth cent. L=Vossianus F. 12, roth cent.
b=Bruxellensis g591, gth cent. A=Ashburnhamensis nunc
Paris. nouv. acq. Lat. 454, 9th cent. In two groups, P V and
bLA. .

9. De Diuinatione in 2 bks. (44); το. De Fato (44); and
11. Translation of the Zzmaeus, v. Academica Priora.

12. Laelius de Amicitia (44). Parisinus-Didotianus, 9/1oth
cent. (Mommsen, Rh. Mus. 1863), M=Monacensis 15514, toth
cent., G=Gudianus 335, roth cent.

13. De Officiis, in 3 bks. (44). Two families: (1) B=Bamber-
gensis 427, rtoth cent., H=Wirceburgensis Mp. f. 1, 1oth
cent., and others. (2) An interpolated class, e.g. Harleianus
2716, 9/toth cent.

Ed. pr.: Mainz, 1465, with Paradoxa.

Ed. pr. of collected philosophic works: Rome, 1471.

Index to philosophic works: H. Merguet, 1887.

Pei CUASSICAL “TEXTS 227

IV. Poems.

Translation of Aratus’ Prognostica and Phaenomena. H=
Harleianus 647, gth cent., Dresdensis 183, roth cent.

Ed. pr.: in G. Valla’s Avienus, Venice, 1488.

VW Lerrers.

(1) General correspondence (62-43) in 16 bks., known as Epistulae
ad Familiares, a title introduced by Stephanus. In MSS. the
various books are named after the chief correspondent, e. g.
M. Tulli Ciceronis epistularum ad C. Curionem. The work was
published by Tiro in single books. In the 4th or 5th cent. it
was arranged in sets of four books, and before the gth cent., when
our tradition begins, in sets of eight. (2) Zhe Special corre-
spondence. (a) Ad Quintum Fratrem (60-54), in 3 bks. (ὁ) Ad Atti-
cum (68-44), in 16 bks. (c) Ad M. Brutum (43), in 2 bks. The only
authority for the second of these, containing five letters, is the
Basel edition of Cratander, 1528. The authenticity of the
Letters to Brutus was long regarded as doubtful, but they are
now held to be genuine with possibly a few exceptions (e.g. i.
16-17). The letters to Atticus must have been published after
the time of Asconius (d. A.D. 58) since he does not mention
them.

The textual tradition of the General is distinct from that of
the Special Letters. Petrarch in 1345 discovered a MS. in
Verona which must have contained the Special Letters. P.’s copy
as well as the original MS. has since disappeared. Salutati,
hearing that the MS. used by Petrarch was in the possession of
Visconti, Duke of Milan, procured a copy which was found to
contain the General Letters. The copy had been made, by
mistake, not from Petrarch’s MS. but from another that had
come from Vercelli. This apographon Vercellense still exists
in P=Laurent. 49. 7. The copy of the Veronese MS. which
Salutati procured in 1389 survives in Laurent. 40. 18.
The Vercelli MS. is still preserved in the Laurentian library
(No. 49. 9 of the oth cent.).

The text of the General Letters depends therefore on this
Vercelli MS. known as M (gth cent.), from which the Italian
family of MSS. descends, and on a number of independent MSS.
In bks. 1-8 the best of these are G= Harleianus 2773, 12th cent.,
and R=Paris. 17812, 12th cent. Their evidence is not as

Q2

228 AUTHORITIES

trustworthy as that of M. In bks. 9-16 the independent tradition
rests on H=Harleianus 2682, 11th cent., F=Berolinensis
(Erfurtensis) 252, 12/13th cent., and D= Palatinus 598, 15th cent.
The evidence of M in these books is valuable but not pre-
ponderant.

(2) The text of the Special Letters depends on M= Laurent.
49. 18 (v. supra). Independent authority is claimed for C=
Cratander’s edition and its marginal readings which are thought
to be derived from W=Wirceburgensis, 11th cent., which is
now fragmentary. Some think that this MS. is identical with
the lost Laurisheimensis mentioned in a roth cent. catalogue
of the library at Lorsch. Z, the Tornesianus, is a MS. once
in the possession of Detournes and now lost: its readings are
preserved by Lambinus and others. It represents an in-
dependent tradition in the Epp. ad Atticum. Against CW Z
stand M and a number of late Italian MSS. which are akin to it
though not descended from it, e.g. E=Excerpta Ambrosiana
(E. 14), 14th cent.; N=Laurent. 49, 14/15th cent.; H=Landianus
of the same date.

Ed. pr. of Ad Fam., Rome, 1467; Ad Alt, Rome, 1470.

Index: M. Nizolius, 1559 (often reprinted). Handlexikon,
Merguet, Leipzig, 1905.

Ed. pr. of collected works, Milan, 1498.

Quintus TuLiius CICERO (102-43).
Commentariolum Petitionis. Its authenticity has been called
in question. Best MSS. are H and F (v. General Letters, supra).

CLaupius CLAUDIANUS (d. circ. A.D. 404). From the point of
view of the textual tradition his poems fall into two divisions :
(1) a large collection containing panegyrics, epigrams, and
other occasional poems ; and (2) the Raptus Proserpinae.
For (1) the main authorities are: (α) Collations of lost MSS.: .
E=Excerpta Florentina or Lucensia, contained in a copy of the
ed. pr. now at Venice (A. 4.36). e=Excerpt. Gyraldina, pre-
served in a copy of the Aldine at Leyden (757. G. 2). (ὁ) Of the
MSS. the most trustworthy are: V=Vat. 2809, a volume con-
taining several MSS., foll. 1-39 belong to 12th cent. the rest to
15th cent.; P=Parisinus Lat. 18552 (Oiselianus), r2/13th cent. ;
n=Par. Lat. 8082, 13th cent., cited sometimes as the Regius;

PORVGUASSICAL TEXTS 229

R=Veronensis 163, gth cent. These fall into two groups:
VPandnEeR. Many inferior MSS.

For (2) no MS. is older than the r2th cent. The poem is
preserved in two recensions: (a) the larger contained in F=
Florentinus S. Crucis pl. 34 sinistr. 12, r2th cent.; S=Par. Lat.
15005, 13/14th cent., and other MSS. (ὁ) A and B=two MSS.
bound up with others in Bodl. Auct. F. 2. 16; C=Cantabrig.
Coll. Corporis Christi 228, 12th cent. There is also a group
which stands midway between these.

Ed. pr.: by Barnabas Celsanus, Vicenza, 1482.

Index in Birt’s ed., Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores, vol. x, 1892.

L. Iunrus MopErRatus COLUMELLA (wrote circ. A.D. 65).

(1) De Re Rustica (12 bks.). (2) De arboribus (τ bk.). Best
codex is Sangermanensis, 9/roth cent., now Petropolitanus 207.
It is closely related to Ambrosianus L. 85 sup.,9/toth cent. The
others (of which the best, the Mosquensis, 14th cent., was burnt
in the invasion of 1812) are of little value.

Ed. pr. in Script. de Re Rust., Venice, 1472.

ConsoLaTio AD LiviaM, 5. v. EpiceDIoN Drusi.

CONSTANTINE EXCERPTS.

These are excerpts made by direction of the Byzantine
Emperor Constantine (912-959) with the object of forming an
Encyclopaedia of History and Political Science. Among the
authors excerpted are Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon,
Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus,
Appian, Arrian, Cassius Dio, Eusebius, Zosimus. The passages
selected were arranged under 53 headings, e. g. περὶ πρεσβειῶν,
περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας, περὶ γνωμῶν. As can be seen from these
titles the matter alone of the authors excerpted was taken into
account and no passages were selected for the sake of their value
as literature. The selection is preserved partly in MSS. dating
from the time of Constantine (e.g. codex Peirescianus, now at
Tours, ofthe section περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας) and partly in later MSS.
The information contained in the historical articles in Suidas’
Lexicon is for the most part drawn from these excerpts. Best ed.
by Boissevain, de Boor, and Biittner-Wobst, Berlin, 1903-

DEMOSTHENES (383-322 B.c.). 61 speeches: besides προοίμια

and ἐπιστολαί.

230 AUTHORITIES

The extant corpus probably represents the selection made by
the Alexandrines. There are traces of ancient editions, e. g. the
᾿Αττικιανά (Sc. ἀντίγραφα) mentioned in cod. F, and the ἀρχαία
(sc. ἔκδοσις) schol. Mid. ὃ 147, but nothing definite is known about

them. There are over 200 MSS. all descended from a common |

archetype in which the end of the Zenothemis was mutilated.

They are sometimes divided into four classes, but their relations —

to one another are by no means constant in the different
speeches. (1) or S=Parisinus 2934, early roth cent., which is

by far the best. In the Third Philippic it preserves a shorter |

version due possibly to an earlier draft of Demosthenes, and in
general it offers a less redundant text than the other families.
L=Laurent. plut. 56. 9.136, 13/14th cent. (partly paper). (2) A=
Augustanus primus, or Monacensis 485,10/11th cent. (3) ¥ or
Y=Parisinus 2935, 11th cent. (4) F or M=Marcianus 416,
11th cent. A note on the Ep. ad Philippum (or. xi) states
that διώρθωται ἐκ δύο ᾿Αττικιανῶν.

There are many papyrus fragments from the Ist cent. A.D.
and later which on the whole support the best MSS.

Scholia to 18 speeches by Ulpian and Zosimus. Many MSS.
contain stichometrical numbers and critical signs.

Ed. pr.: Letters in Aldus, Epp. Graec. Collectio, 1499 ; Speeches,
Aldus, 1504.

Index: S. Preuss, Leipzig, 1892.

DINARCHUS (circ. 360-290 B.c.). 3 speeches.
The text depends almost entirely on A=Crippsianus, Brit.
Mus. Burney 95,13thcent.,and N= Bodleianus Mise. 208, 14thcent.
Ed. pr.: Aldus, Orationes Rhetorum Graecorum, 1513.
Index: Forman, Oxford, 1897.

Cassius DIO CocceEIANnus (circ. A.D. 150-235).

‘Pwpaixy ἱστορία in 80 bks., of which 36-60 and 79 survive

almost entire. Fragments of the others are preserved in the
various excerpts mentioned below. Epitome of 36-end by
Joannes Xiphilinos (11th cent.): of the earlier books (1-21) by
Zonaras (12th cent.).

(A) Libri Integri. The text of bks. 36-60 rests mainly upon
two MSS., viz.: L=Laurent. Med. 70. 8, 11th cent. (bks. 36-50),
and supplemented to the end of bk. 54 by V= Vat. 144, a copy

Sc Rk ee
ee a a te da EO

POR CLASSICAL. TEXTS 231

of L made in 1439. M=Marcianus 395, 11th cent. (bks. 44-60,
but with frequent lacunae after bk. 55).

Almost the whole of bk. 79 and the early chapters of bk. 80
are preserved in cod. Vaticanus Gr. 1288, 5/6th cent.

(B) Lpitomes. The MSS. of Zonaras are exceedingly
mumerous: the best are B=Vindob. 16, 15th cent., and C=
Colbertinus-Parisinus 1717, 13th cent. The best authorities
for Xiphilinos are V=Vat. 145, 15th cent.; C=Coislinianus
320, 15th cent.

(C) Excerpts from the Constantine collection. Excerpta Valesiana,
published by Valesius in 1634 from Peiresc’s codex of the Con-
stantine excerpts (q. V.).

Excerpta Maiana, published by Angelo Mai in 1827 from
Vaticanus 73, a palimpsest, 10/11th cent.

Excerpta Ursiniana, published in 1582 by Fulvius Ursinus,
from copies of a MS. (burnt in 1621) belonging to the Spaniard
Pacius.

There are also fragments preserved in Parisinus 1397 of
Strabo (A), 11th cent.; in the Florilegium S. Maximi (Vat. 739
(A), 11/12th cent.); in Bekker’s Anecdota (Parisinus 345, 11th
cent.); and in Tzetzes and other Byzantine writers.

Edd. pr.: bks. 36-60, R. Stephanus, Paris, 1548; Xiphilinos,
R. Stephanus, 1551; Zonaras, H. Wolf, Basel, 1557.

Index: Sturz, vol. vii, Leipzig, 1825.

DIODORUS (contemporary with Julius Caesar).

Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική in 40 bks. (published in pentades), of which
I-5 and 11-20 survive; excerpts from the rest are preserved.
For the ‘Ineditum Vaticanum’ (Vat. 435, 14th cent.) v. Hermes,
1892, pp. 118-130.

In 1-5 there are two classes: (1) D=Vindobonensis 79, 11th
cent., and its descendants. (2) C=Vaticanus 130, 12th cent., and
several MSS. of 15/16th cent. The divergence is as old as
Eusebius whose quotations follow the tradition of class C, eg.
I. 16. I νευρίνην D: εὑρεῖν Euseb.: εὑρεῖν ἣν C.

In 11-15 there are three groups: (1) P= Patmius, 1o/11thcent.,
by far the best. (2) A=Coislinianus 149, 15th cent., which also
contains a valueless text of 1-5. There are other MSS. of this
group of 15thcent. (3) F=Laurentianus 70. 12, 14th cent., con-
taining bks. 11-20 and others.

232 AUTHORITIES

In 16-20 P (v. spr.) and a kindred MS. K=Venetus Mar-
cianus 376, 14/15th cent. Other MSS. are useful only in supple-
menting the deficiencies in these. All are from the same arche-
type with a lacuna in bk. 17. 84.

Edd. pr.: by Vincentius Obsopoeus, Basel, 1539 (16-20); by
H. Stephanus, Geneva, 1559 (1-5, 11-20).

Index: ed. Petrus Wesselingius, vol. ii, Amsterdam, 1756.

DIOGENES LAERTIUS (early in 3rd cent. a.p.).

Lives of the philosophers in τὸ bks., entitled in the best MSS.
Aaeptiov Διογένους φιλοσόφων βίων καὶ δογμάτων συναγωγῆς τῶν εἰς
δέκα.

There is no complete critical edition. Specimens of a critical
text have been published by I. Bywater, Vita Artstotelis, Oxf.
1879, and by Usener, Epicurea, 1887, who gives an account of the
chief MSS. p. visq. The chief MSS. seem to be in two groups.
(τ) B=Neapolitanus (Borbonicus) bibl. nat. gr. 253, 12th cent.
P (which is almost a gemellus of B)=Paris. 1759, formerly in
Cardinal Ridolfi’s possession. Q=Paris. gr. 1758 (Fonte-
blandensis), 15th cent., is useful to determine the first hand of P
before the intrusion of readings from the vulgate. H=Laurent.
pl. 69. 35 is a later copy of P after the text had been so corrected.
(2) This group is best represented by F=Laurent. pl. 69. 13,
t2th cent., copied from a MS. which omitted i. 65—ii. 17. B is
the main authority for the text but F is often useful. There are
a number of late interpolated MSS. (e. g. Vat. 1302) which some-
times contain felicitous emendations by the humanists. The
critical value of the excerpts given by Suidas still remains to
be investigated.

Ed.pr. :: Basel, 2599.

DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus (under Augustus).

(1) ἹΡωμαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία in 20 bks, (1-9, 10-11, and fragments
extant). Rhetorical writings. (2) τέχνη ῥητορική. (3) περὶ συνθέ-
σεως ὀνομάτων. (4) περὶ TOV ἀρχαίων ῥητόρων ὑπομνηματισμοί (first half
only). (5) περὶ τῆς λεκτικῆς Δημοσθένους δεινότητος. (6) ἐπιστολαὶ
πρὸς ᾿Αμμαῖον (α΄,βἼ. (7) ἐπ. πρὸς Τναῖον ἸΤομπήιον. (8) περὶ τοῦ Θουκυ-
δίδου χαρακτῆρος. (9) περὶ τῶν Θουκυδίδου ἰδιωμάτων. (10) περὶ
Δείναρχου. (11) περὶ μιμήσεως, Originallyin 3 bks. Fragments of
bk. isurvive and an abstract of bk. ii entitled τῶν ἀρχαίων κρίσις.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 233

For (1) the best MSS. in bks. 1-10 are F= Urbinas 106, toth
cent. A=Chisianus 58, roth cent. For bk. 11 the MSS. are
late: e.g. L=Laurentianus plut. 70. 5, 15th cent. Excerpts
in the Constantine Excerpts and in M=Ambrosianus Q. 13,
15th cent. The work was originally arranged in sets of 5 bks.
(pentades, cf. p. 8). For the scripta minora there are traces of
three ancient editions: I. in P=Parisinus 1741, 11th cent., con-
taining (2), (3), and (6 #’). II. F=Laurent. 59. 15, 12th cent.,
containing (3), (4), το. III. A number of MSS., e. g. M=Ambro-
sianus D. 119 sup., 15th cent., containing (4), (7), (8), (9), (5), (6 2).
The text of (3) exhibits two distinct recensions.

Ed. pr.: “τίου in R. Stephanus, Paris, 1546-1547.

Scripta minora were published in other works at intervals
from 1493-1586. 1493 chapter on Isocrates (4) in ed. pr. of Iso-
crates ; 1502 (9) ined. pr. of Thucydides ; 1508 (2), (3), (9) in vol. 1
of Aldus, /hetores Graect; 1513 Lysias (4) in ed. pr.; in 1547
all these were reprinted by R. Stephanus in his ed. pr. of
the History; 1554 H. Stephanus added the introduction to (4),
(7), and Ep. to Ammaeus on Demosth. and Aristotle; 1580
P. Victorius printed the chapters on Isaeus and Dinarchus
from (4); 1586 F. Sylburgius printed a complete collection of
all the opuscula.

Index in J. Hudson’s ed., Oxford, 1704; Glossary to (6) and
(7) in Roberts’ ed., Cambridge, 1901.

EPICEDION DRUSI, or Consolatio ad Liuiam.

A poem printed in the ed. Romana of Ovid’s works in 1471.
The existing MSS. are only copies of this edition. M. Haupt,
Op. i. 315, regarded it as a forgery made by some scholar of
the Renaissance. The tendency of later criticism has been to
attribute it to some anonymous poet of the Augustan age.

EPICTETUS, 5. v. ARRIANUS.

EURIPIDES (circ. 480-406 B.c.).

Nineteen tragedies, of these the Κύκλωψ is a satyric drama.
The Ῥῆσος is regarded as spurious.

The MSS. fall into two groups:

I. M=Marcianus 471, 12th cent. Contains Hec., Or., Phoen.,
Andr., Hipp. to v. 1234. A=Parisinus 2712, 13th cent. Con-
tains Hec., Or., Phoen., Andr., Med., Hipp. (=Cod. A in Aris-

234 AUTHORITIES

tophanes and in Sophocles). W=Vaticanus 909, 13th cent.
Contains Hec., Or., Phoen., Med., Hipp., Alc., Andr., Troad.,
Rhes. B= Parisinus 2713, 13th cent. Contains Hec., Or., Phoen.,
Προ, Med., Alc, Andr.

11. L=Laurentianus 32. 2, 14th cent. Contains all extant —
plays except the 7voades and Bacch. 756 sqq. P=Palatinus 287
+Laurentianus 172, 14th cent. The Palatine portion contains
Andr., Med., Suppl., Rhes., Ion, [ph. T., Iph. A. { Danae, a spurious
fragment by some Renaissance scholar], Hipp., Alc., Troad.,
Bacch., Heraclid.to v. too2. The Laurentian (sometimes called
G) Herachd. from ν. 1003, Herc., Hel., Elect., Hec., Or., Phoen.
P (but not G) belonged to Marcus Musurus who used it in pre-
paring the Aldine.

Of the inferior MSS. the best are: O= Laurentianus 31. Io,
14th cent. D=Laurentianus 31. 15, 14th cent. (=I in Aris-
tophanes).

The ‘Byzantine’ codd. contain a selection of three plays—
Hec., Or., Phoen.—made in the 14th century, and are of no value.

Kirchhoff rejected the second class as interpolated. This has
been shown to be untrue by Wilamowitz in Analecta Euripidea,
1875.

The first class ΙΑ ΝΒ represents an early selection of ten
plays (Hec., Or., Phoen., Hipp., Med., Alc., Andr., Rhes., Troad.,
Bacch.) made by some unknown scholar about the 3rd cent.
A.D. No plays outside this group are quoted by writers later
than Philostratus of Lemnos, who lived under Sept. Severus
(A.D. 193-211). This selection was fully annotated. The Bacchae
with its scholia was subsequently lost. Nine plays out of this
selection survive in one or more MSS. of the first class. Of
these M is the best, but A and V, although they are rarely the
sole authorities for a right reading, greatly strengthen the testi-
mony of M. Bis valuable for its scholia and for a number of
good variants which support M. O and D agree mostly with
B, but sometimes with M. They are accordingly useful where
M and B fail or their readings give ground for suspicion.

At a later date, but while the selection still contained the
Bacchae, another unknown scholar added to it nine other plays
(Hel., Elect., Herc., Heraclid., Cycl., Ion, Suppl., [ph. A., [ph. T.)

which had survived from some complete unannotated edition—

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 235

probably that of Aristophanes of Byzantium. When adding these
nine unannotated plays he discarded the scholia belonging to the
ten plays of the selection.

L is descended from a copy of this composite edition in which
the Zroades and Bacchae 756-end were missing. In the nine
unannotated plays (Hel—Iph. A.) P is either copied from L or
closely related to it. In the first ten plays P is influenced by
the tradition preserved in MSS. of the first class as well as by
L, e.g. in Hec., Or., Phoen., Andr. it tends to agree with MA V,
in Rhes., Alc. with L.

The papyri (e.g Achmim papyrus of /thesus, 4/5th cent. A.D.)
stand midway between the twoclasses of MSS. The divergence
in tradition in the plays common to both classes cannot accord-
ingly be of great antiquity.

The scholia are best preserved in MBV and in a late MS.
Neapolitanus II. F. 41, 15th cent. They contain fragments of
the learning of Aristarchus, Callistratus, Crates, Didymus, and
refer to later scholars such as Irenaeus (Med. 218) and Dionysius.
Edition by E. Schwartz, Berlin, 1887. Discussed by Wilamo-
witz, Herakles, i, pp. 199 sqq. There are Byzantine scholia by
Thomas Magister, Moschopulus, and Triclinius upon Hec., Or.,
Phoen. These are of little value.

Ed. pr. by Ianus Lascaris, Florence, 1494 (?), containing
only Med., Hipp., Alc., Andr. v. Legrand, Bibl. Hellen. i. 40. Ali
except Elect. in Aldine ed. by Marcus Musurus, 1503. The
Elect. first printed by Victorius, Rome, 1545.

Index: C. and B. Matthiae, Lexicon A-I, Leipzig, 1841 ;
C. D. Beck, Cambridge, 1829.

EUTROPIUS (under Emp. Valens, 364-378), author of a com-
pendium of Roman history in τὸ bks. entitled ‘ Breuiarium
ab urbe condita’.

Two separate archetypes: (1) seen in the Greek translation of
Paeanius, a contemporary; (2) in the extant MSS. which fall
into two groups—(A) best represented by G=Gothanus ΤΟΙ,
gth cent., a lost Fuldensis (F) used by Sylburg, and a lost MS.
used by Paulus Diaconus; (B) an inferior group descended
ultimately from the same archetype as (A) but presenting a
‘corrected’ text, 6. 5. O=Audomarensis 697, 10/11th cent., and
Leidensis 141, roth cent.

236 AUTHORITIES

Ed. pr.: [G. Laver], Rome, 1471.
Index in Delphin ed. (Anna Fabri); Havercamp, 1729.

FEsTUus, s. v. VERRIUS FLACCUS.

L. AnnaEuS FLORUS (fl. circ. A.D. 137).

Epitomae de Tito Liuto bellorum omnium annorum DCCC, lib.
ii. Two main sources: (1) B= Bambergensis, E. iii. 22, gth cent. ;
(2) N=Nazarianus-Heidelbergensis 894, gth cent. The inferior
MSS. are still sab iudice.

Ed. pr.: [Paris, 1470-2].

Index in Delphin ed. (Anna Fabri), 1674.

Sextus lutius FRONTINUS (cire. A.D. 41-103).
(1) Gromatic work, preserved only in excerpts ; (2) Strategemata
in 3 bks., bk. 4 is spurious ; (3) De aguis urbis Romae, in 2 bks.
(τ) For tradition v. 5. Agrimensores. (2) Depends on two classes
of MSS., (a) best represented by H=Harleianus 2666, 9/roth
cent.; (δ) by P=Parisinus 7240, 10/11th cent. (3) All MSS.
are copies of Casinensis 361, ? rth cent.
Edd. pr.: (2) Rome, 1487; (3) J. Sulpitius, Rome, 1486.
Index to (2) in Oudendorp, 1779; to (3) in Polenus, 1722.

M. CornELius FRONTO (circ. A.D. 100-175).

Letters to the Emperors Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius,
and other correspondents, together with a few rhetorical writings,
are preserved in a palimpsest codex once belonging to the
monastery of Bobbio. The fragments are at Milan (in the
Ambrosian) and at Rome (Vat. 5750), where they were found by
Mai and published in 1815 and 1823. The Ambrosian portion
consists of 141 leaves, the Vatican of 53. The codex belongs to
the 6th cent. and was used in the roth cent. for a text of the
Speeches of Symmachus, the Scholia Bobiensia on Cicero’s
speeches, and for various classical and theological fragments.
The Frontonian text has the subscription: ‘Caecilius saepe
rogatus legi emendaui.’

GELLIus, s. v. AULUS GELLIUS.

Ciaupius CarsAar GERMANICUS (15 3.c.—a.p. 19), nephew of
Tiberius.
(1) Translation of Aratus’ Φαινόμενα (725 hex.); (2) and of his
Prognostica (fragments).

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 237

MSS. are in two classes: (τ) the best, in which the fourth frag-
ment of the Prognostica follows after Phaenom. 582. To this
class belong A= Basileensis A. N. iv. 18, 8/gth cent. ; B= Bero-
linensis-Phillippicus 1832, 9/1oth cent. (2) The inferior family
which exhibits interpolations from the Aratea of Avienus, e.g.
Bononiensis 5 (Boulogne) 18, roth cent., and L=the Susianus=
Leidensis-Vossianus L. Q. 79, a MS. of the gth cent. famous for
its illustrations.

Scholia to the Phaenomena in (1) Basileensis and (2) Sanger-
manensis 778, 9th cent. These two sources are combined in the
Strozzianus, 14th cent. (now in the Laurentian Lib. Florence).

Ed. pr.: in Manilius Bologna, 1474.

Index in A. Breysig’s ed., Teubner, 1899.

GRATTIUS. Cynegetica (541 hexameters).
A=Vindobonensis siue Sannazarianus 277, gth cent., from
which all others are derived.
Ed. pr. (with Halieutica of Ovid and other works): Venice, 1534.
Index in M. Haupt’s ed. of Halieutica, Leipzig, 1838.

Ap HERENNIUM, s.v. RHETORICA AD H.

RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM (attributed to Cornificius), 4 bks.
(circa 86-82 B.c.).

There are two classes of MSS.: (1) the older, called by Marx
class M, mutilated at the beginning of bk. 1, best represented by
Herbipolitanus Mp. misc. f. 2, g9thcent. P= Parisinus7714, gthcent.
B=Bernensis 433, 9/1oth cent. C= Petropolitanus-Corbeiensis,
g/toth cent. (2) A younger class known as E, with text entire,
e.g. b= Bambergensis 423, 11/13th cent. Leidensis (Gronovianus)
22, 12th cent. Darmstadiensis 2283, 12/13th cent.

Ed. pr.: together with the De Jnuentione of Cicero, Venice,
1470. The text, published with the Rhetorical writings of Cicero
at Venice in 1514, is founded on a lost MS.

Index in F. Marx’ ed., Leipzig, 1890.

HERODOTUS (circ. 480-425 B.c.).

History in 9 bks. A=Laurentianus 70. 3, toth cent. B=
Angelicanus 83, 11th cent. C=Laurentianus conv. soppr. 207,
11th cent. E=excerpts in Parisinus suppl. 134, 13th cent.,
possibly copied from a MS. of 1oth cent. P=Parisinus 1633,

238 AUTHORITIES

14th cent. R= Vaticanus 123, 14th cent. (paper). Bk. 5 is missing.
S=Sancroftianus, Emmanuel College Cambr. 30, 14th cent. V=
Vindobonensis 85 (Gr. hist. profan. 1), 14th cent.

The MSS., which are all to be referred to the same arche-
type, since all have the interpolated chapter viii. 104, fall into two
groups: (1) the Florentine, headed by A; (2) the Roman =
BRSV. Cand P are of little value, C belonging on the whole
to (1), while P has a mixed text.

Both groups are needed as authorities for the text. The
Florentine is superior, but the Roman is often in agreement
with the quotations made by grammarians and other ancient
writers.

There are papyri from Oxyrhynchus (at Munich) containing
i. 115-116 and other fragments of bk. 1.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Venice, 1502.

Index: J. Schweighaeuser, Strassburg, 1824; Jacobitz, Specr-
men lexict, Leipzig, 1870.

HERO(N)DAS (circ. 300-250 B.C.).

Eight mimes and fragments in Brit. Mus. Papyrus no. 135,
tst/2nd cent. A.D.

Ed. pr.: Kenyon, 1891.

Index in Biicheler’s ed., Bonn, 1892.

HESIOD (? 700 B.c.).

(1) Θεογονία (L022 hexameters). (2) Ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι (828). (3) ’Aazis
Ἡρακλέους (480). Its authenticity was doubted in antiquity.

(1) Θεογονία.

MSS. _ I. Papyri: A= Parisinus Suppl. Gr. togg, 4/5th cent.

(contains vv. 74-145). B= Brit. Mus. clix, 4th cent. (210-238,

260-270). R=Vindobon. biblioth. Caes. L. P. 21-29 (Archduke
Rainer’s Collection), 4th cent. (626-881). Also contains part of
᾿Ασπίς and Ἔργα. 11. Codd. fall into two main groups: (2) C=
Fragments in Paris. suppl. Gr. 663 (from Athos), 12th cent.,
Vv. 72-145, 450-504. D=Laurentianus 32. 16, 13th cent. E=
Laur. conv. soppress. 158, 14th cent. F= Paris. 2833, 15th cent.
G=Vaticanus 915, 14th cent. H=Parisinus 2772, 14th cent.
I=Laurent. xxxi. 32, 15th cent. (¥) K=Venetus Marcianus
ix. 6, 14th cent. L= Paris. 2708, 15th cent.

lm * May ae noe

ἔ
i

ROke CUENSSICAL VEXTS 239

All the codd. are held to be descended from one archetype,
whose text is preserved best in the Q-group. It is not possible,
however, to dispense with the ¥-group, whose readings are some-
times superior, e.g. v. 31 δρέψασαι where Q has δρέψασθαι. Of the
Q-group D is the best. Closely akin to it are the two fragments
C, part of a MS. written on Mt. Athos. E and F are copies of
the same original.

The papyri generally support the best MSS.

There are two inferior recensions which occasionally restore
or preserve a right reading: x=Casanatensis 356, 14th cent.,
and two others, e.g. 635 χόλον θυμαλγέ ἔχοντες K: μάχην θ.
ex. PQW, t= Recension of Triclinius extant in his autograph copy,
Marcianus 464, 14th cent.

(2) Ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι.

MSS. I. Papyri: A=Rainer papyrus (R in Theogony q.v.).
B=Genevensis bibl. publ. pap. 94. Restores 4 lines after v. 169
which were apparently ejected by some ancient critic. II. Codd.
fall into 3 classes in which the chief representatives are: (1)
ie Panis..2771, 11th cent. (2) D=Laurent. 31. 30, 12th) cent.
Of the codd. of this group I=Laur. 32. 16 (D in Theogony)
contains good readings. E.g. 262 παρκλίνωσι confirmed by A. (3)
E= Messanius bibl. universit. 11 (now destroyed), 12/13th cent.

The evidence for the text of the Ἔργα is of very high quality.
The first two groups of MSS. represent the same recension.
Triclinius appears to have used a MS. of the D-group for his
recension (Marcianus 464). The third class, headed by E, seems
to represent a Byzantine recension whose readings or corrections
are occasionally of value.

(3) “Aowis.

MSS. I. Papyri: A= Rainer papyrus (cf. Theog. and Ἔργα).
II. Codd.: (Qa) B= Paris. suppl. Gr. 663 (=C in Theog.), 12th
cent., contains vv. 75-298. C=vv. 87-138, another fragment in
the same MS. D=Ambrosianus C. 222 inf, 13th cent. F=
Panis) 2773, 14th’ cent. (Q@b) G=Paris. 2772, 14th cent. (=H
ΤΠ ΠΕΡ ἩἩΞΕΙΕΕΙ or. 92, 15th cent.,(=1 in Theog.).
i—Marleian: 5724, 15th’ cent: [(Ψ a). E=Laurent. 32, 16, 13th
cent. (=Din Theog.). (Ψ Ὁ) K=Casanatensis 356, 14th cent. (=x

240 AUTHORITIES

in Theog.). L=Laur. conv. soppress. 158, 14th cent. (=E in
Theog.). M= Paris. 2833, 15th cent. (=F in Theog.).

All codd. are ultimately derived from the same archetype.
They fall into two groups 2 and Ψ. In the 2-group the Ambro-
sian D is of the greatest importance. The other MSS. of this
group, GHI, present a somewhat inferior text. After the
Ambrosian D the most valuable MS. is E of the ¥-group. The
remaining members of this group are of little real importance.

Ed. pr.: Ἔργα, printed with 18 Idylls of Theocritus, without
printer’s name, place, or year. As the work is printed with the
same type as the Milan Isocrates of 1493, it is conjectured that it
was produced at Milan about that date. First complete edition
published by Aldus, 1495.

Index: Paulson, Lund, 1890.

HESYCHIUS of Alexandria (5th cent. a.p.).
A lexicon of noteworthy (λέξεις) or rare (γλῶσσαι) words.
There is only one MS., viz. Marcianus 522, 15th cent., which
was used by Aldus for the ed. pr., Venice, 1514 (cf. p. 105).

HOMER.

(A) Ancient Epics: (1) Ἰλιάς, 24 bks. (2) Ὀδύσσεια, 24 bks.

(B) Late works: (1) Ἐπιγράμματα preserved in the pseudo-
Herodotean life of Homer. (2) Ὕμνοι (34). (3) Βατραχομνυομαχία.

The Epics differ from almost all other texts in the problem
which they present. Other texts must ultimately be derived
from an archetype written or corrected by the author, and the
restoration of this archetype is the legitimate aim of criticism.
But no such archetype can be reasonably supposed to lie behind
the Homeric poems. For though the art of writing was not un-
known at the time of their composition, yet it can hardly be
doubted that they must long have been propagated by oral
transmission. The main facts proved by documentary evidence
are: (1) a vulgate text (i) κοινή, ai δημώδεις) at least as early as
the age of Plato, and derived by some from a recension supposed
to have been made by order of Pisistratus. (2) ‘Wild’ or
‘Eccentric’ texts containing many interpolated lines. Such
texts were formerly known from the quotation in Aeschines,
Timarchus 149, and are now amply attested by recent discoveries
of papyri (Grenfell and Hunt, A/ibeh Papyri, i, No. 19). (3) The

HOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 241

critical editions of the Alexandrine scholars. - Though much is
still obscure in the relations which exist between these three
types of text, it seems now fairly certain (1) that they were for
a considerable period rivals of one another; (2) that the vul-
gate ultimately ousted the Eccentric texts owing to the support
which it received from the Alexandrines, who founded their own
texts on the best copies of the vulgate that they could procure ;
(3) that in the main the vulgate still survives in our MS. tradi-
tion, influenced in its readings, though not to any considerable
extent, by the Alexandrine editions. The idea first started by
Wolf that the Aristarchic text was the parent of the text which
is presented by the MSS. is now surrendered. The MSS.
contain many readings that are known to have been rejected by
Aristarchus.

An editor therefore who bases his recension on the docu-
mentary evidence must aim either at (1) the restoration of the
vulgate as given in the best MSS., or (2) the reconstruction of
the Alexandrine text, i. e. substantially the diorthosis of Aristar-
chus. For this the evidence at present at hand is hardly
sufficient. Most editors merge the two aims together and pro-
duce an eclectic text.

From the time of Bentley, however, it has been seen that the
documentary evidence represents only one stage in the history
of the text of the Epics. Language, metre, folklore, and archaeo-
logy have been invoked to supply a number of delicate tests by
which distinct stages in the growth of the tradition are revealed.
But, as W. Leaf has said, ‘The task of producing a really
archaic text, if possible, is entirely distinct from the collection of
diplomatic evidence’ (Class. Rev. 1892, p. 12), and though such
reconstructions are a proper concern of specialists, the ordinary
reader must necessarily wish to have the poems in the form in
which they were known to the Greeks of the classical period.

For this there is the following evidence in the /iad:

(τ Papyri, many of which are as early as the 3rd cent. B.c.
(e.g. Brit. Mus. Pap. 689 a). They often present the ‘eccentric’
texts noticed above.

(2) Codices. The oldest complete codices are: A= Venetus-
Marcianus 454, τού τ τῇ cent., containing the Alexandrine signs
prefixed to the lines of the text and scholia which are excerpted

473 R

242 AUTHORITIES

from works on the Aristarchean recension by Aristonicus and
Didymus, who lived under Augustus; from Herodian, a con-
temporary of Marcus Aurelius, and from Nicanor a contempo-
rary of Hadrian. B= Ven.-Mare. 453, r1th cent. C= Lauren-
tianus 32. 3, 11th cent. D=Laur. 32. 15, 10/11th cent.

The remaining MSS. are arranged by Allen in 17 families, of
which the most noteworthy is h, consisting of Lipsiensis 1275,
14th cent., L=Vindobonensis 5, 14/15th cent. and others.
These contain more Alexandrine readings than are found in
other groups. Whether this is due to accident or to a deliberate
recension is uncertain. There are fragmentary codices of early
date :—e=Ambrosianus pictus, 5/6th cent. £=Syriacus rescrip-
tus, Brit. Mus. Add. 17. 210, 6/7th cent. Of the codices contain-
ing scholia the most important after A and B are T= Townleianus,
Brit. Mus. Burney 86, 11th cent.; Ge=Genevensis 44, 13th cent.

In the Odyssey:

(1) Papyri, of which the earliest is Hibeh 23, 3rd cent. B.c.

(2) Codices(all minuscule)areverynumerous. They arearranged
by Allen in 17 groups. The oldest codices are: L* (or G)
=Laurent. 32. 24, 10/11th cent. L* (or F)=Laurent. conv.
soppr. 52, 11th cent. Pal. (or P)=Palatinus 45, A.D. 1201 (at
Heidelberg), with scholia. H* (or H)=Harleianus 5674, 13th
cent., with scholia.

Ed. pr. by Demetrius Chalcondylas [B. and N.T. Nerlius,
Florence], 1488.

Index: Gehring, Leipzig, 1891; Ebeling, Leaxzcon, Leipzig,
1885-1888 ; Prendergast, //ad, London, 1875; Dunbar, Odyssey,
and Flymns, Oxford, 1880.

Homeric Hymns, preserved either along with the Epics or in
selections from poets such as Callimachus, Pindar, Theocritus.
Among 34 hymns attributed to Homer there are only five of any
considerable length, viz. (1) Eis Δημήτραν (contained in the
Mosquensis alone v. ifra). (2) Eis ᾿Απόλλωνα. (3) Bis Ἑρμῆν.
(4) Eis ᾿Αφροδίτην. (5) Eis Διόνυσον.

All MSS. are descended from the same archetype, which
must have presented a number of alternative readings.

The best account of the condition of the text is given in the
edition of Allen and Sikes, 1904. The codices, 28 in number, fall

BOR CUnooICAL, TEXTS 243

into three groups. (1) M=Leidensis (Mosquensis) 18. 33 H,
T4th cent., a mutilated MS. found in 1777 by C. F. Matthaei in
the library of the synod, Moscow. (2) x=a group of το MSS.
more or less closely related, among which are E= Estensis 164.
3. E. 11, 15th cent., and T=Matritensis 4562. 24, a.p. 1464 (cf.
Callimachus). (3) p=a group of 14 inferior MSS. which often
preserve a superior reading. The superiority of M is undoubted.

Ed. pr.: Chalcondylas, Florence, 1488, evidently printed from
a MS. of the x family.

Index: Gehring, Leipzig, 1895; Dunbar, Oxford, 1880.

(3) Βατραχομνυομαχίαᾳ. Numerous MSS. of which the oldest
are Bodleianus-Baroccianus 50, 10/1ith cent., and Laurent.
a2. 3) 11th-cent.

Ed. pr. 1488 (supra). Some believe that an earlier edition is
in the Rylands library.

Index in Ludwich’s ed., Leipzig, 1896.

Q. HORATIUS F accus (65 B.c.-a. Ὁ. 8).

1. Carmina (4 bks.) and Carmen Saeculare. 2. Epodes.
3. Sermones. 4. Epistulae and Ars Poetica.

There are about 250 MSS. The best date from the 9/11th
cent. The keystone of criticism is V=the Blandinianus, the
oldest of the four MSS. discovered by Cruquius. They were
destroyed in 1566 and the readings of V are known only from
C.’s editions, 1565-1578. His good faith has been questioned
but is generally upheld. V was probably written in Irish
cursive (Winterfeld, Rh. Mus. 1905, p. 32). It alone contained
the reading ‘Campum lusumque trigonem’ in S. i. 6. 126. Of
the other MSS. the chief are: A=Parisinus 7900 (Puteaneus),
toth cent., with its gemellus a=Ambros. 136, toth cent. B=
Bernensis 363 (Bongarsianus), circ. A.D. 860. C=Monacensis
14685, 11th cent. D=Argentoratensis c. vii. 7, gth cent., burnt
in 1870. E=a MS. of the rith cent. bound up with C. 8=
Harleian. 2725, 9th cent. m$w=Parisini 10310 (g/roth cent.),
7974, 7971 (both roth cent.). Keller and Holder posit three
classes ; Leoand Vollmer only two, which they regard as derived
from one archetype. (1) ABCDE, (2) ὃπφψ.

Scholia: (1) by Pomponius Porphyrio, a grammarian of the
3rd cent., (2) attributed to Acro, (3) the Commentator Cruquianus,
i.e. scholia collected from V and other MSS. by Cruquius.

R 2

244 AUTHORITIES

Eight MSS. (including A) exhibit the subscription of Mavor-
tius (consul in A.D. 527) after the Epodes. ‘Vettius Agorius
Basilius Mauortius u(ir) c(larissimus) et in(lustrissimus) ex com-
(ite) dom(estico), ex cons(ule) ord(inario) legi et ut potui emen-
daui conferente mihi magistro Felice oratore urbis Romae.’

Ed. pr.: c. 1471 (place unknown).

Index in Orelli-Mewes, 1889; Keller-Holder, 1864-1869.

HYPERIDES (389-322 B. c.).

Six speeches are known from fragmentary papyri.

Harris and Arden papyrus, Ist cent. A.D., containing Kara
Δημοσθένους, Ὑπὲρ Λυκόφρονος, Ὑπὲρ Εὐξενίππου. discovered in 1847,
Stobart papyrus, 2nd cent. A. D., containing ᾿Ἐπιτάφιος in 1856, all
now in Brit. Mus. ; Révillout papyrus, 2nd cent. 8. c., of the Kara
᾿Αθηνογένους published in 1889; Brit. Mus. papyrus, Ist cent. A.D.,
of the Kara Φιλιππίδου published in 1891.

Index in Blass’ ed., Leipzig, 1894; A. Westermann, Leipzig,
1860-1863.

Fiavius IOSEPHUS (a. D. 37-c. I00).

(1) Ἰουδαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία, 20 bks. (2) Περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου,
7 bks. (3) Κατὰ ᾿Απίωνος, 2 bks. (4) Φλαουίου ᾿Ιωσήπου Pros.
[(5) Eis Μακκαβαίους, spurious. |

(x) For first τὸ bks. the best MSS. are: R=Paris. 1421,

14th cent. O=Bodleianus miscell. Gr. 186, 15th cent. M=
Marcianus Gr. 381, 13th cent. For last τὸ bks.: P= Palatinus
Vaticanus 14, 9/toth cent. (bks. 18-20 missing). F=Laurentia-
.nus pl. 69. 20, 14th cent. (bks. 1-15). L=Leidensis F. 13,
11/12th cent. (bks. 11-15). A=Ambros. F. 128, 11th cent.
M=Laurentianus pl. 69. 10, 15th cent. These fall into groups:
(1) PF, (2) L being midway, (3) AM. L£filome preserved in
Berol.-Phillipp. 222 and other MSS.

(2) P=Parisinus 1425, 10/11th cent. A=Ambros. D. sup. 50,
1o/tith cent. V=Vat. 148, 11th cent. R= Vat.-Pal. 284, 11/12th
cent. C=Vat.-Urb. 84, 11thcent. These are grouped as: (1) PA,
(2) V RC, with a number of MSS. midway between these.

(3) Laurentianus pl. 69. 22, from which all other MSS. are
descended.

(4) P A M as in (1).

Ed. pr.: by Arlenius, Basel, 1544.

POR CEASSICAL TEXTS 245

ISAEUS (fl. 390-350 8. c.).

Eleven λόγοι κληρικοί.

The only authorities are A=Crippsianus, Brit. Mus. Burney
95, 13th cent., and Q=Ambrosianus D. 42 sup., a paper MS.
14th (?) cent., a MS. greatly inferior to A though it sometimes
preserves the right reading. Several 15th cent. MSS. once
thought to be independent are now proved to be descendants
of A.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1513, in Orationes Rhet. Graec.

Index of selected words in Wyse’s ed., Cambridge, 1904 ;
T. Mitchell, Oxford, 1828.

ISOCRATES (436-338 B.c.).

(1) Πρὸς Δημόνικον. (2) Πρὸς Νικοκλέα. (3) Νικοκλῆς. (4) Πανη-
γυρικός. (5) Φίλιππος. (6) ᾿Αρχίδαμος. (7) ᾿Αρεοπαγιτικός. (8) Περὶ
Εἰρήνης. (9) Εὐαγόρας. (10) Ἑλένη. (11) Βούσιρις. (12) ΠΠανα-
θηναϊκός. (13) Κατὰ τῶν Σοφιστῶν. (14) Πλαταϊκός. (15) Περὶ ἀντι-
δόσεως. (τ6) Περὶ τοῦ ζεύγους. (17) Τραπεζιτικός. (18) Παραγραφὴ
πρὸς Καλλίμαχον. (19) Αἰγινητικός. (20) Κατὰ Λοχίτου. (21) Ipods
Εὐθύνουν ἀμάρτυρος. (22) ᾿Ἐπιστολαί.

MSS. in two groups: (1) Integri. f=Urbinas 111, g/toth
cent., and some MSS. akin to it such as A= Vat. 936, 14th cent.
(2) A group which is mutilated in the Axtdosts, δὲ 72-310, e. g.
e-—leaurent,.o7. t4, 13th cent.; and A=Vatic. 65, Δ. Ὁ. 1063.
Most of the late MSS. are copied from A. There is little need
for conjecture owing to the excellence of F. The papyrus frag-
ments provide a number of new, but not important, readings
and show that the readings of Γ are not invariably to be preferred.

Ed. pr.: of Speeches—Demetrius Chalcondylas, Milan, 1493;
of the Epistles—Aldus, Epistolae Diversorum, Venice, 1499. The
vulgate text in use till the 19th cent. was based on H. Wolf’s
edition, Basel, 1553.

Index: Preuss, Leipzig, 1904.

Decimus Junius IUVENALIS (circ. a. bp. 62-after 128).

Sixteen satires in 5 bks. The principal MS. is P= Monte-
pessulanus-Pithoeanus 125, gth cent. Its original readings have
been much altered by later hands. There are fragmentary
sources similar to P in the Scrdae Arouienses, 10/11th cent.,
and the Florilegium Sangallense (cod. Sang. 870), 9th cent.

246 AUTHORITIES

w=the great mass of MSS., which offer an inferior text, though
their evidence cannot be wholly disregarded. Three of these
have the subscriptio of Nicaeus: ‘Legi ego Niceus apud M.
Serbium Rome et emendaui.’ The earliest evidence for the
text is the palimpsestus Bobiensts (Vat. 5750), ? 4th cent., which
contains xiv. 323-xv. 43. Its text is not noticeably good. It
supports P at one time and ὦ at another.

One of the vulgar MSS. O=Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon. xli,
written in a Beneventan hand in the rith cent., contains 36
verses of Sat. vi, which are not found in any other MS., viz.
34 lines between 365 and 366, and 2 between 373 and 374.

Scholia: The most ancient scholia are preserved in P and in
Sangallensis 870, Scholia of a similar character are quoted by
G. Valla in his edition of 1486, and are ascribed by him to a
grammarian named Probus. The scholia preserved in the ordi-
nary MSS. and known as the Expositio Cornuti are of little value.

Ed. pr.: Rome, Ulrich Han, circ. 1470, or De Spira, Venice,
1470.

Index: Friedlander’s ed., Leipzig, 1895.

LAUS PISONIS.

First published by Johannes Sichard in his edition of Ovid,
Basel, 1527, apparently from a codex found at Lorsch which is
now lost. There are excerpts in an Anthology preserved in two
Paris MSS. 7647 (gth cent.) and 17903 (13th cent.). It is attri-
buted by some to Calpurnius Siculus.

Granius LICINIANUS (2nd cent. a. D.).

Historian ; his work is little more than an epitome of Livy.
Fragments known only from the British Museum palimpsestus
ter scriptus (Add. MSS. 17212)—the text of L. lying beneath
that of a grammatical treatise over which a Syriac translation of
Chrysostom has been written.

Titus LIVIUS (59 8. c—A. D. 17).

Ab urbe condita libri, in 142 bks., arranged in decades:
35 bks. survive, viz. 1-10, 21-45. Each decade has its own
tradition.

First Decape. All MSS. with the exception of the Veronese
palimpsest, bibl. capitularis Veronensis 40, 4th cent. (containing
fragments of bks. 3-6), descend from a copy written perhaps in

POR, CLASSICAL TEXTS 247

the south of France, of recensions made by Nicomachus Dexter
(3-5), Nicomachus Flavianus, circ. 402-410 (6, 7, 8), and Victo--
rianus (I-10), who lived considerably later. The MSS. which
combine these recensions fall into three groups: (1) M=Medi-
ceus-Laurentianus 63. 19, rith cent., and a lost Vormaciensis -
known in part from Rhenanus’ text. (2) P= Paris. 5725 (Col-
bertinus), F=Par. 5724 (Floriacensis), both of the roth cent.
U= Upsaliensis, 11th cent. (3) R=Vaticanus 3329 (Romanus),
tith cent. D=Florentinus-Marcianus 326 (Dominicanus), r2th
cent., and others, to which O= Bodleianus 20631, 11th cent., has
been recently added by W. C. F. Walters. In the MSS. all
bks. have the subscription: ‘Victorianus u.c. emendabam domnis
Symmachis.’ Bks. 6, 7, 8 join with it the further subscription,
‘Nicomachus Flauianus u.c. III praef. urbis emendaui apud
Hennam.’ Bks. 3, 4, 5 add, ‘ Nicomachus dexter τὶ. c. emendaui
ad exemplum parentis mei Clementiani.’

Tuirp DecapbeE. P= Paris. 5730, 5th cent. (Puteaneus), revised
at Avellino near Naples in 6th cent., with its descendants,
e.g. R=Vatic. Reg. 762, oth cent.; C=Par. 5731 (Colbertinus),
to/11th cent.; M= Mediceus-Laurent. 63. 20, 11th cent., was long
thought to be the sole authority for this decade. For the second
half, however, the lost Spzrensis, 11th cent. (known from variants
preserved by Rhenanus in the Basel ed. of 1535 and from a leaf
discovered by Halm), is now recognized as an independent
authority. The seven leaves of the Zurtn palimpsest, 5th cent.,
from Bobbio (containing parts of 27-29), are also independent and
allied with the Sfzrensis. ‘The object of criticism has been to
find traces of this independent tradition in the inferior MSS.,
ἘΠΕῚ ἘΠΞΞ ΕΠ ἼΙΕΙ 5 2664, 15th cent.;) V=Vat. Pal. 676,
15th cent.

FourtH Decape. B=Bambergensis, 11th cent., contains as
far as 38. 46: fragments of the uncial codex from which B was
copied were found in 1907 at Bamberg. The lost Moguntinus
(Μὴ in insular script contained from 33.17 tothe end. It is known
only from the Mainz edition of 1518 and the Basel ed. of 1535.
There are many late MSS. which repeat and supplement the
tradition of B. A fragment of a 5th cent. MS. survives in
Vat. 10696.

FirtH Decapg, bks. 41-45. The tradition depends wholly

248 AUTHORITIES

on Vindob. 15, 5th cent. (Laurishamensis). Facsimile in Sijthoff’s
series, 1907.

A fragment of bk. g1 (Sertorian war) was discovered by Bruns
in 1772 in Vat.-Pal. 24.

PeriocHarE. These are summaries (often degenerating into
mere tables of contents). They cover all the books except 136
and 137. The best MS. is Palatinus-Heidelbergensis 894
(Nazarianus), 9th cent. Fragments of a rival summary, 37-40
and 48-55, are preserved in a 3rd cent. papyrus from Oxy-
rhynchus (Grenfell and Hunt, 668).

Ed. pr.: Rome, circ. 1469 (omitting bks. 33 and 41-45).

Index: Figner, Leipzig, 1897 (unfinished); Delphin ed.
(Douiat), 1682.

{LONGINUS }.

The treatise Περὶ ὕψους, ascribed to Longinus (3rd cent. A. D.),
is now recognized to be an anonymous work of earlier date,
probably belonging to the Ist cent. a. Ὁ.

The text depends on P= Parisinus 2036, toth cent. All other
MSS. are copies of this, with the possible exception of Paris.
985, 15th cent., which preserves a fragment (copied in Vat. 285)
which is thought by some to indicate a different tradition.

Ed. pr. by F. Robortellus, Basel, 1554.

Index: R. Robinson in /ndices tres, Oxford, 1772.

Marcus AnnaEus LUCANUS (a. D. 39-65).

Epic de Bello Ciutl, in τὸ bks.

The principal MSS. are: P= Parisinus lat. 7502 (Colbertinus),
roth cent. U=Vossianus Leidensis xix, f. 63, with scholia, roth
cent. These two are closely related. M=Montepessulanus
H.113,9/1oth cent. Z= Parisinus lat. 10314, gth cent., closely re-
lated to M. V= Vossianus Leid. xix, 4. 51, 1oth cent., with scholia.

Fragments of 4th cent. MSS. survive in N=a MS. from
Bobbio of which leaves are at Vienna (Vind. 16) and at Naples
(Neap. IV. A. 8); and P or N=Vat.-Pal. 24, 4th cent. Beside
the ordinary scholia there are the Commenta Bernensia con-
tained in Bern. 370, of the roth cent.

PUMZ and other MSS. contain the following subscriptio
‘Paulus Constantinopolitanus emendaui manu mea solus’. Use-
ner, 2th. Mus., 1868, p. 497, conjectures that he was alive in 674.
It is usual to assume (1) a Pauline family of MSS.; (2) an

HOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 249

earlier text, best represented by V, whose readings, however,
have been intruded into the Pauline text. Neither of these
groups can be neglected in the formation of a text. Scholia in
C=Bernensis litt. 370, roth cent., and W=Wallersteinensis I.
2, 11/12th cent.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1469.

Index in Oudendorp, 1728; Lemaire, 1830.

Titus LUCRETIUS Carus (died in 55 or 53 B.c.). Poem De
Rerum Natura in 6 bks.

The text depends almost entirely on two MSS. at Leyden.
A=Vossianus F. 30, gth cent. (oblongus); B=Voss. O. 94
(Quadratus, cited by Lambinus as Bertinianus), gth cent. Be-
sides these there are many late Italian MSS. all derived from
a lost archetype brought to Italy from Germany by Poggio in
1414. A copy of this made by Nicoli is now Laurent. 35. 30
(Nicolianus). Fragments of gth cent. MSS. survive at Copen-
hagen, Royal Library, no. 24 (Fragmentum Gottorpianum) and at
Vienna (Schedae Vindobonenses, no. 107).

Ed pr.: Brescia, circ. 14:73:

Index: J. Paulson, Gothenburg, 1911.

LUCIAN (circ. a. D. 120—after 180).

Eighty-two separate writings, mostly in the form of Dialogues,
are attributed to Lucian. The 53 epigrams attributed to him in
the Anthology are probably by an author of the same name who
lived in the rst cent.

The best MSS. are: F=Vaticanus go, 9/1oth cent. E=Har-
leianus 5694, g/toth cent. #®=Laurentianus C. S. 77, roth cent.
Q= Marcianus 434, 10/11th cent. S=Mutinensis 193, 11th cent.
B=Vindobonensis 123, 11th cent. U=Vaticanus 1324, 11/12th
cent. L=Laurentianus 57. 51, 11/12th cent. Schola in, E, Φ,
S, 2 and A= Vat. gr. 1322, 13th cent.

Ed. pr.: Florence, 1496.

index inj. 1 Reitz’s ed., Utrecht, 1743.

LYCOPHRON (fl. 274 B.c.), Cassandra or Alexandra (1474
iambic trimeters).
The best MS. is M=Marcianus 476, 11th cent., containing
elaborate scholia, some of which are derived from the com-
mentary of Theon, a grammarian of the age of Tiberius.

250 AUTHORITIES

Ed. pr. of text, in Aldus’ Pindar, Venice, 1513; of com-
mentary, Basel (Oporinus), 1546.

Index in E. Scheer’s ed., Berlin, 1881.
LYCURGUS (died circ. 326 8. c.).

One speech (against Leocrates). Same MS. tradition as the
speeches of Andocides.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Orationes Rhet. Graec., 1513.

Index: Forman, Oxford, 1897; Kondratiew, Moscow, 1897.

LYSIAS (circ. 450-380 8. c.).

Thirty-four speeches. The authenticity of 6 (against Ando-
cides) and g (Ὑπὲρ τοῦ στρατιώτου) was doubted in antiquity:
8 (συνουσιαστικός) has been suspected by modern scholars on the
ground that hiatus is avoided in it.

The text of the forensic speeches rests entirely on X=the Pala-
tine codex, 12th cent. (Heidelbergensis 88). For the Epitaphios
and the speech on the murder of Eratosthenes there is, besides
X, what appears to be a separate tradition, best represented by
F=Marcianus 416, 13th cent. The speech Kara Avoyetrovos sur-
vives in fragments preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and
that against Theozotides in Papyrus Hibeh, i, no. 13.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Venice, 1513, in Orat. Rhet. Gr.

Index: D. V. Holmes, Bonn, 1895.

MACROBIUS THEODOSIUS (ἢ. circ. a. D. 399).

(1) Commentary on Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis. (2) Saturnala
(7 bks.). The end of bk. 2 and beginning of bk. 3, the second
half of bk. 4 and the end of bk. 7 are lost.

P=Parisinus 6371, 11th cent. B=Bambergensis 873, 9th
cent. (Sat. 1-3. 19. 5). B=Bambergensis 875 (Sommn. Scip.).
There are many inferior MSS. of the Sa¢. which omit the Greek
passages.

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472,

M. MANILIUS (under Tiberius), Astronomicon libri v.

There are 22 MSS. extant. Of these only three are of prime
value for the text. (1) G=Gemblacensis nunc Bruxellensis bibl.
reg. 10012, 11th cent., and a kindred MS. L=Lipsiensis bibl.
Paulin. 1465, 11th cent. (2) M=Matritensis M. 31, 15th cent.,
which contains also the Si/wae of Statius. It is held to be
a copy made for Poggio of a MS. which he discovered near

POR] CLASSICAL TEXTS 251

Constance in 1416-1417. Gand L are badly interpolated, while
M, though more sincere, is the work of a scribe whom Poggio
describes as ‘ignorantissimus omnium uiuentium’. The three
MSS. are all descended from a common archetype.

Ed. pr.: Regiomontanus, Nuremberg, circ. 1472.

Index in Delphin ed. (M. Fayus or du Fay), 1679.

MARCUS AURELIUS, i.e. Μάρκου ᾿Αντωνίνου αὐτοκράτορος τῶν εἰς
ἑαυτὸν βιβλία ιβ΄. (τ2 bks.)

The Palatine codex on which Xylander based the editio prin-
ceps is now lost. The only complete MS. surviving is Vaticanus
1950, 14th cent., which is very corrupt. Fragments in Darm-
stadtinus 2773 (codex Creuzeri), 14th cent., and a large number
of other MSS. from 13/15th cent.

Ed. pr.: Gul. Xylander, Ziirich, 1559.

Index in J. Stich’s ed., Leipzig, 1903.

M. VaLerius MARTIALIS (circ. a. D. 40-104).

Epigrams, consisting of (1) Liber Spectaculorum, (2) Epigram-
maton libri xii, (3) Xenia and Apophoreta.

The MSS. are very numerous and fall into three classes
whose archetypes can be reconstructed with some probability.
The first and best class (which alone contains the Lzb. Spect.)
consists of Florilegia or collections of Excerpts, viz. H= Vindo-
bonense 277, 9th cent.; T=Parisinum-Thuaneum 8071, 9/r1oth
cent.; L=Leidense-Vossianum Q. 86, gth cent. (2) In the second
class the typical MSS. are: L=Berolinensis-Lucensis Fol. 612,
12th cent. ; P=Vaticanus-Palatinus 1696, 15th cent.; Q=Arun-
dellianus Mus. Brit. 136, 15th cent. (3) Of the third the best
examples are: E=Edinburgensis, toth cent. ; X= Parisinus-Pute-
aneus 8067, roth cent.; A= Leidensis-Vossianus Q. 56, 11th cent. ;
V=Vaticanus 3294, 1oth cent.

The archetypes of these three families are severally designated
by the signs A®, B, σὰ, Of these A? is a recension which has
toned down the indecencies of the original text. B* represents
the recension of Torquatus Gennadius, made circ. A.D. 401, as is
attested by his subscription at the end of most of the books,
e.g. xiii. 4 ‘Emendaui ego Torquatus Gennadius in foro Diui
Augusti Martis consulatu Vincentii et Fraguitii uirorum claris-
simorum feliciter’ (i.e. A.D. 401). C* represents a third distinct

252 AUTHORITIES

recension. The glaring discrepancies in reading between the
different recensions can only be explained by the assumption
that Martial issued more than one edition of some of his works.
Id. pr. cire. 1471, but it is uncertain whether the Roman or
the Venetian edition is the earlier.
Index in Friedlander’s ed., Leipzig, 1886.

Meta, s.v. Pomponius MELa.

MENANDER (342-291 B.c.), writer of the New Comedy.

Large fragments of his comedies were found by G. Lefebvre
at Aphroditopolis, in a papyrus of 4/5th cent. in 1905, and
published at Cairo in 1907, i.e. Heros, Epitrepontes, Samia,
Perictromene (also fragments in Pap. Lipsiensis 613, P. Oxyr.
211). There are also small fragments of Georgos (P. Genevensis
155), Citharista (Berliner Klassikertexte v. 2, p. 115), Colax (P.
Oxyr. 409), Coneazomenae (P. Dorpatensis), Misumenos (P. Oxyr.
1013), Perinthia (P. Oxyr. 855), Phasma (vellum fragments at
St. Petersburg, 4th cent.).

MOSCHUS (circ. 150 B.c.), bucolic poet.

His works have the same tradition as the poems of Theocritus
(ᾳ.ν.). (1) “Ezuradios Βίωνος and (2) Meyapa in NM and ¢-groups;
(3) Ἔρως δραπέτης in %-group; (4) Εὐρώπη in F=Ambros. B. 99,
i2th cent., M=Vat. 915, 13th cent., and S—Laurent. 5 τ
14th cent.

M. AureEtius O_tympius NEMESIANUS (fl. circ. A.p. 280). (1)
Cynegetica (325 hex.); (2) Four Eclogae.

(1) A Lombardic MS. was discovered by Sannazaro containing
Ovid’s Haleutica, Grattius, and Nemesianus Cynegelica. The
part containing Ovid and Grattius survives as Vindobon. 277, 9th
cent. : a copy only of the Nemesianus survives in Vindobon. 3261,
16th cent. The poem is also preserved in two Paris MSS. (7561,
4839), oth cent. (2) Same tradition as Calpurnius’s £clogae, q.v.

Ed. pr. in Grattius, Venice, 1534.

Index in M. Haupt’s Ovid’s Hlaleutica, 1838.

CorneLtius NEPOS (contemporary with Cicero and Atticus).

De uiris illustribus, originally in 16 books. Of this there sur-
vive: (1) the section De excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium,
containing 23 biographies; and (2) two biographies (viz. of
Atticus and Cato) belonging to the section De Historicis Latinis,

HOR CEASSICAL TEXTS 253

The Lives of the Generals have been handed down under the
name of Aemilius Probus, a contemporary of Theodosius II.
An epigram by Probus is appended in the MSS. after the life of
Hannibal. It has been held that he is the real author, but
there is little doubt that he was merely an editor and that the
epigram refers to a copy of selections from the complete work
presented by him to the Emperor Theodosius.

There is some evidence that Nepos himself produced two
editions of his work. MSS. are in two groups: (1) The best,
represented by P=Parcensis, 15th cent., and by the lost codex
Danielinus siue Gifanianus, known from a collation preserved in
a copy of the editio Marniana (Frankfort, 1608). (2) An inferior
group to which belong: A=Guelferbytanus-Gudianus 166,
12/13th cent., and B=Sangallensis, 14th cent.

Ed. pr.: Jenson, Venice, 1471. The work in this edition is
attributed to Aemilius Probus.

Index in Delphin ed. (N. Courtin), 1675; G. H. Bardili, 1820.

NICANDER (2nd cent. B.c.), didactic poet.

(1) Θηριακά (958 hexam.). (2) ᾿Αλεξιφάρμακα (630). (3) A few
epigrams.

Best MS. is N= Paris. suppl. 247, 10/11th cent. (some leaves are
lost). G=Goettingensis, 13/14th cent., and M=Laurent. 32. τό,
13th cent., are of use.

Ed. pr. in Aldine Dioscorides 1499.

Index in O. Schneider’s ed. 1856.

NONIUS MARCELLUS (first half of 4th cent. B.c.).

De Compendiosa Doctrina in 20 bks. (bk. 16 lost), 1-12
being concerned with the diction, 13-20 with the subject-matter
of the older Latin writers.

All MSS. are derived from the same archetype, since all have
one leaf in bk. 4 placed at the beginning of bk. τ out of
its proper order. It is probable that this archetype was in
three volumes, containing bks. 1-3, bk. 4, bks. 5-20, since
the text given by many MSS. is not uniform but varies within
these limits. The MSS. fall into three groups, exhibiting
(1) a pure, (2) an interpolated, and (3) an excerpted text. In
bks. 1-3 these families are represented respectively by:
(τ) L=Lugdunensis-Vossianus lat. fol. 73, 9th cent. (2) G=

254 AUTHORITIES

Gudianus 96, toth cent. (3) In this class all omit bk. 3. In
bk. 4 the families are (1) L (v. supra), Genevensis 84, gth cent.,
B=Bernensis 83, roth cent. ; (2) G (v. supra); (3) e.g. Oxonien-
sis-Bodleianus, Canon. Class. Lat. 279, 1oth cent. In bks. 5-20:
(τ) L and three others of which the best is H= Harleianus 2719,
g/toth cent.; (2) G; (3) numerous and in two groups. The
text has to be founded mainly on L with the aid of the first hand
of the Genevensis in bk. 4 and of certain corrections (in 1-3) in
F=Laurentianus 48. 1, roth cent., which may be derived from the
archetype.

Ed. pr.: In i-ti, iv-xx, Rome, 1470: in iii, Pesaro, 1511.
NONNUS PANOPOLITANUS (end of 4th cent. a.D.).

Dionysiaca in 48 bks. [He also wrote a Metaphrasis of
St. John’s Gospel. |

MSS. are in two classes, headed respectively (1) by N=
papyrus Berolinensis P. 10567, probably of the 7th cent; (2) by
L=Laurent. 32. 16, written anno 1280. All codd. are descended
from L through P= Pal.-Heidelb. 85, 16th cent.

Ed. pr.: Falkenburgius, Plantin, Antwerp, 1569.

OPPIAN (under Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 161-180). Poet.

(1) Halheutica in 5 bks. (2) The Κυνηγετικά in 4 bks. are by
a later writer who lived under Caracalla.

MSS. in two classes. To the best belong A= Marcianus 479,
containing (2). K=Laurent. 32. 16 (1), 14th cent. C= Par. 2860,
16th cent., containing only (2). D=Neapolitanus, II. F. 17, 15th
cent., and others.

Ed. pr. of Haleutica: P. Junta, Florence, 1515: of Cynegetica,
Aldus, Venice, ? 1517.

Pusiius OVIDIUS Naso (43 B.c.—a.D. 17 or 18).

A. Works written before his banishment in A. p. 8.

1. Herotdes or Eptstulae Heroidum in 21 poems, of which 16-
21 are considered doubtful by some critics. All MSS. descend
from a common archetype which omitted ii. 18-19. Best MS.
is P=Parisinus 8242 (Puteaneus), 9th cent. Translation into
Greek by the Byzantine Maximus Planudes (late 13th cent.) of
little value.

2. Amores, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris, Medicamina factet.
P (v. supra) R=Parisinus 7311 (Regius), roth cent. S=

POR CUCASSICAL ‘TEXTS 255

| Sangallensis 864, 11th cent. O=Oxon. Auct. F. 4. 32, oth cent.

} M=Flor. Marc. 223, 11th cent., containing the Medicamuina.

3. Metamorphoses (15 bks.). M=Florentinus Marcianus 225,
11th cent. N=Neapolitanus, 11th cent., Frag. Bernense, 363,
8/gth cent. (cf. A. Gercke, Seneca-studien, p. 53). The late MSS.
are corrupt but indispensable for bk. 15.

4. Fasti (6 bks.). A=Vaticanus Reginensis 1709 (Peta-
vianus), toth cent., is the best. W= Vat. 3262 (Ursinianus), 11th
cent. M=Mallersdorfiensis 2 (at Munich), ? rath cent. A has
probably been overestimated. It gives the Carolingian tradition
while V gives the Lombardic.

B. Works written in exile.

5. Lristia (5 bks.). L=Laurentianus 5. Marci 123, 11th cent.,
containing i. 5. II—ili. 7. I, iv. 1. 12—iv. 7.5. The rest of the
codex was destroyed and replaced by a depraved text in the 15th
cent. A=Marcianus Politiani, now lost, ? 11th cent. G=
Guelferbytanus-Gudianus 192, 13th cent. H=Holkhamicus,
13th cent. W=Vaticanus 1606, 13th cent.

6. Epistulae ex Ponto(4bks.). Frag. Guelferbytanum, 6/7th cent.
The best complete MS. is A=Hamburgensis, gth cent.

7. Doubtful or spurious works. Doubtful are Halieutica (130
hex.). W=Vindobonensis 277 (Sannazarianus), 9th cent. P=
Parisin. 8071, 9/toth cent. /bzs,in 644 elegiacs. Francofurtanus,
14/15th cent. G=Galeanus, O. 7. 7, 12th cent., and many others.
Also preserved in several collections of Florilegia. Epistula
Sapphus. This is not contained in the best MSS. Part of it is
probably by Ovid and part an interpolation made during the age
of Petronius. Mux and Epicedion Drusi are spurious, though both
are held by some to belong to the age of Ovid.

Ed. pr.: Bologna, 1471; also Rome, 1471.

Index: Delphin(D. Crispin), 1669: P. Burman, 1727: to Weta-
morph. in ἃ. E. Gierig and J. C. Jahn, 1823: to Haleut. M.
Haupt, 1838: to 7015 R. Ellis, 1881.

PANEGYRICI VETERES (age of Diocletian, a.p. 284-305): a
collection of complimentary speeches made to various
emperors, including Pliny’s Address to Trajan.

The collection is derived from a lost MS. discovered by Ioannes

Aurispa at Mainz in 1433. Three apographa of this MS. (as is

256 AUTHORITIES

now generally admitted) survive, viz.: (1) A=Upsaliensis 18,
written by Johannes Hergot (1458). (2) One written by Aurispa
himself in 1433, now lost. Copies of it survive in W=Vat. 1775
and other MSS. (3) H=Harleianus 2480. A collation of a lost
Bertiniensis made by Fr. Modius was used by Livineius in
his edition (Antwerp, 1599).

Ed. pr.: by Puteolanus, Milan, ? 1482. Index in Delphin ed.
(J. de la Baune), 1677.

PAUSANIAS (under the Antonines).

Περιήγησις τῆς “Ἑλλάδος in τὸ bks.

The MSS. are numerous but late. The condition of the text is
unsound owing to the number of lacunae. Schubart holds that
all MSS. are descended from one archetype. If this be true the
archetype must have exhibited many variant readings. The MSS.
fall into three divisions, though several present a text which is
not uniformly characteristic of any one division. (1) P= Paris.
1410, A. D. 1491, to which are allied Fa, Fb= Laurent. 56. 10 and
56. 11, Pd=Paris 1411. (2) L=Lugd. 16. K and others. These
two classes probably descend from a codex which belonged to
Arethas. (3) The vulgate, e.g. V=Vindob. 23. M=Mosquensis
(libr. of Synod) 194. Wn=Venetus 413, Lb=Lugd.16.L. Any
text must be eclectic, and there is a wide field for conjecture.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Venice, 1516.

AuLus PERSIUS Fvaccus (34-62). Six satires.

Two classes: (1) A=Montepessulanus 212, 1oth cent, B=
Vaticanus tabularii Basilicae Vaticanae 36 H, gth cent. These
present the recension of Sabinus made in a.p. 402. The sud-
scriptio is corrupt, and probably ran as follows ‘Flauius lulius
Tryfonianus Sabinus u.c. protector domesticus temptaui emen-
dare sine antigrapho meum et adnotaui Barcellone consulibus
dominis nostris Arcadio et Honorio q(uinquies)’. (2) P= Monte-
pessulanus 125, gth cent. (cf Tuvenalis). The tendency has
been to prefer the evidence of (2). The Fragmentum Bobiense
(Vat. 5750) belongs to 4/5th cent. and contains 1. 53-104.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1470. Indexin Ὁ. Jahn’s ed., 1843.

PERVIGILIUM VENERIS, S.v. ANTHOLOGIA LATINA.

PETRONIUS ARBITER (d. A. p. 65).
Satirae in at least 20 bks., of which fragments from bks. 15, 16

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 257

survive. _L=the longer excerpts from a lost MS., preserved in
Scaliger’s apographum (Leidensis Q. 61) and in the editions of
Tornaesius (1575) and Pithou (1587). =the shorter excerpts,
found in Bernensis 357, 1oth cent., and many inferior MSS.
H=Par. 7989, 15th cent. (Traguriensis), found at Trau in 1650,
which alone contains the Cena Trimalchionis.

Ed. pr.: in Panegyrict uett. Milan, circ. 1482: of the Cena,
printed by P. Frambottus, Padua, 1664. Index in P. Burman’s
ed., 1743. Lexicon by I. Segebade and E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig,
1898.

PHAEDRUS (said to have been a freedman of Augustus).

Fabulae in 5 bks. The only entire MS. surviving is the
Pithoeanus, g/toth cent., belonging to the Marquis de Rosanbo
at Dumesnil near Mantes. Another codex, now lost, was dis-
covered in 1608 by the Jesuit scholar, J. Sirmond, at Rheims.
It was burnt in 1774, but its readings are known. A fragment of
another MS. belonging to P. Daniel (charta Danielis), 9/roth
cent., is preserved in Vat. Reg. 1616.

Ed. pr. by P. Pithou, Troyes, 1596.

Index: in Delphin (P. Danet), 1675: A. Cinquini, Milan, 1905.
PHILO IUDAEUS (ἢ. a.p. 39), Graeco-Judaic philosopher.

No MS. of his works is older than the roth cent. The arche-
type of all MSS. can be referred to the 4th cent., when the two
bishops of Caesarea, Acacius (338-365) and Euzoius (376-379),
had the works in the library of Pamphilus and Origen at Caesarea
transferred from papyrus to vellum. Cod. V preserves this
tradition by the inscription Εὐζόιος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις ἀνενεώσατο.
MSS. very numerous. Among the best in the portions of his
works which they preserve are: R= Vat. gr. 316, gth cent. S=
Seldenianus 12, roth cent. W=Vindob. theol. gr. 29, 11th
cent. For full account see Cohn-Wendland’s ed., 1896-1906.

Ed. pr.: A. Turnebus, Paris, 1552.

PHILOSTRATUS.

The works which survive under this name probably belong to
four men: (1) Philostratus, son of Verus (fl. under Nero) ; (2)
Flavius Philostratus (fl. under Septimius Severus, 193-211);
(3) his stepson (fl. under Caracalla 211-217); (4) a grandson of
(3) who wrote a second set of Eixoves. (1) Ta és τὸν Τυανέα

473 5

258 AUTHORITIES

᾿Απολλώνιον. (2) Βίοι σοφιστῶν. (3) Εἰκόνες. (4) “Hpwixos. (5) Γυμνα-
στικός. (6) Ἐπιστολαί. (7) Two διαλέξεις. (8) Νέρων. Phil. | is pro-
bably the author of (8), Phil. II of (1) and (2), Phil. 111 of (3) and
(4). The authorship of the remaining works is very uncertain.

In (1) MSS. are in two groups ; to the better group belongs
n=Parisinus 1801. In (2) there are three groups. The best
MSS. in each are (a) r=Vaticanus 99. (0) p= Mediolanensis
C. 47. (c) p=Parisinus 1696. In (4) four groups. To the first
belongs Laurentianus 58. 32. In (6) the best family is represented
by R=Vaticanus 140. In (3) MSS. are exceedingly numerous.
The best are F= Laurent. 69. 30, 13th cent., P= Paris. 1696, 14th
cent., and V?= Vaticanus 1898, 13th cent. (5) depends upon copies
of a MS. brought by Menoides Minas from Greece circ. 1840.
The second Eixéves depend on Laurent. 58. 32, r2th cent.

Ed. pr. for (2), (3), (4) in the Aldine Lucian, 1503; for (1) Aldus,
1504; (6) in the Aldine Epp. Gracc., 1499; collected edition,
Morel, Paris, 1608.

Index to (3) in Teubner text, 1893.

PHOTIUS, patriarch of Constantinople (c. A.p. 820-891).

(1) Βιβλιοθήκη ἢ Μυριόβιβλος, a collection of excerpts.

(2) Λέξεων συναγωγή.

For (1) the best MS. is Marcianus 450. For (2) the only
authorities are the codex Galeanus and Berolinensis graec. oct.
22, 11/12th cent., which contains a—azapvos.

Edd. pr.: (1) D. Héschel, Augsburg, 1601 ; (2) ἃ. Hermann,
Leipzig, 1808. The Berlin frag. was published by Reitzenstein,
1907.

PINDAR (522-442 B.C.).

Odes : (1) Ἔπίνκοι Ὀλυμπιονίκαις (14). (2) ᾿Ἐπίνικοι Πυθιονίκαις (12).
(3) Ἔπώικοι Νεμεονίκαις (8+3 celebrating other than Nemean
victories). (4) Ἔπώικοι Ἰσθμιονίκαις (8). Considerable fragments
preserved in papyri and in quotations made by ancient authors.

The text has passed through the hands of ancient scholars
such as Aristarchus. ‘The oldest scholia go back to Didymuas,
and were probably edited in their present form in the 2nd cent. ©
A.D. All MSS. are descended from a common archetype dating
from this period. The two best, each of which represents a sepa-
rate line of descent from this archetype, are A=Ambrosianus

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 259

C. 222 inf., 13th cent., containing Οὐ, i-xii and the ‘Ambrosian’
scholia. B=Vaticanus Gr. 1312, 12th cent., containing with
a few omissions Οὐ, Pyth., Nem., Isthm., and the ‘Vatican’
scholia.

A. Boeckh was the first to reject the evidence of the interpolated
MSS., which present the recensions of Moschopulus, Triclinius,
and Thomas Magister.

Ed, pr: Aldus, 1513:

Index: Rumpel’s Lexicon, Leipzig, 1883; Concordance,
Bindseil, Berlin, 1875.

PLATO (427-347 B. C.).

The works attributed to him consist of 42 dialogues, 13 letters,
and ὅροι or Definitions. The authentic dialogues were arranged
by Thrasylos (a Platonic scholar of the age of Tiberius) in g
tetralogies. I. (1) Εὐθύφρων. (2) ᾿Απολογία. (3) Κρίτων. (4)
Φαίδων. Il. (5) Κρατύλος. (6) Θεαίτητος. (7) Ξοφιστής. (8) Π|ολι-
τικός. III. (9) Παρμενίδης. (10) Φίληβος. (11) Συμπόσιον. (12)
Φαῖδρος. IV. (13) ᾿Αλκιβιάδης α΄. (14) ᾿Αλκ. β΄. (15) Ἵππαρχος.
(16) ᾿Αντερασταί. V. (17) Θεάγης. (18) Χαρμίδης. (19) Λάχης.
(20) Avows. VI. (21) Ev@vdnpos. (22) Ilpwraydpas. (23) Popycas.
(24) Μένων. VII. (25) Ἱππίας μείζων. (26) Ἵππ. ἐλάττων. (27) Ἴων.
(28) Μενέξενος. VIII. (29) Κλειτοφῶν. (30) Πολιτεία. (31) Τίμαιος.
(32) Κριτίας. IX. (33) Μίνως. (34) Νόμοι. (35) ᾿Επινομίς. (36)
Ἔπιστολαί{. This arrangement has been attributed to Tyrannion
of Amisos who was employed by Atticus. There are traces of an
arrangement in trilogies, attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium,
Six spurious dialogues are attributed to the Platonic corpus
(viz. Περὶ δικαίου----Περὶ ἀρετῆς ---Δημόδοκος---Σίσυφος---- Ἐρυξίας---
᾿Αξίοχος). The ὅροι are also spurious. A dialogue called ᾿Αλκυών
(preserved with Lucian’s works) is also falsely attributed to
Plato.

The corpus was originally written in two volumes, the first con-
taining tetr. i-vii, the second viii and ix. Each volume has
a separate tradition.

For tetr. i-vii the chief MSS. are : B= Bodleianus, E. D. Clarke
39 (Clarkeanus), A.D. 895, containing tetr. i-vi. The apographa of
B, viz. C=Crusianus siue Tubingensis, D= Venetus 165, both of
12th cent., are often of use. T=Venetus Append. Class. 4, cod. 1,

Ss 2

260 AUTHORITIES

represents the same family as B. It contains tetr. i-vii and
part of viii in a 12th cent. hand, the end of the MS. belonging to
the period of the Renaissance. W=vVindobonensis 54. suppl.
phil. Gr. 7, contains a mixture of readings from B and T, but is
thought by some to represent a separate tradition.

For tetr. viii-ix, and ὅροι and spurious dialogues, the best MS.
is: A=Parisinus 1807, 9/toth cent. The deficiencies of A are
sometimes supplied by later independent MSS., e.g. in the
Republic by D (v. supra), and M=Malatestianus plut. xxviii. 4,
in the 7imaeus by Y= Vindob. 21, and in tetr. viii by F= Vindob.
55: suppl. Gr 39 which ends with the Minos. In tetr.ix L=
Laur. So, 17, O=Vat-.796 are of use.

All MSS. are generally held to be derived from a common
archetype. The quotations in ancient writers, e.g. Stobaeus,
Eusebius, show a different text known as the ‘Old Vulgate’, and
traces of this text are discerned by some critics in W and F.

The fragments of the Phaedo in the papyrus Arsinoiticus dis-
covered by F. Petrie are of little value.

Anctent Commentaries. UHermeias (5th cent. A.p.) on the
Phaedrus: Proclus (A.p. 412-485) on the Republic, Alc., Parm.,
Tim., Crat.: Olympiodorus (6th cent.).

Scholia in the various MSS. The most elaborate are those
belonging to the Gorgias and Timacus.

Edo pt. : Aldus, 151s:

Index: Ast’s Lexicon, Leipzig, 1835-1838.

T. Maccius PLAU-TUS (d. 184 B.c.).

21 comedies. (1) Amphitruo. (2) Asinaria. (3) Aulularia.
(4) Captiut. (5) Curculio. (6) Casina. (7) Cistellaria. (8) Epidicus.
(9) Bacchides. (10) Mostellaria. (11) Menaechiut. (12) Miles
Glortosus. (13) Mercator. (14) Pseudolus. (15) Poenulus. (16)
Persa. (17) Rudens. (18) Stichus. (19) Trinummus. (20)
Truculentus. (21) Vidularia (fragments only in A).

The best MS. is A=Ambros. G. 82. sup., 3rd/4th cent., a palim-
psest with the Latin version of the Book of Kings written above
the text of Plautus in the 8th cent. Only 236 leaves are preserved.
The Amph., Asin., and Curc. are missing. Besides this there is
P=the Palatine Family, represented by B= Vaticano-Palatinus
1615, τοί cent. (uetus Camerarii) ; C= Palatinus 1613, 11th cent.,

PO CEASSICAL TEXTS 261

at Heidelberg, called the ‘decurtatus’, since first eight plays are
missing ; D=Vaticanus 3870, 11th cent. (Ursinianus); and by
a fragmentary collation of a lost MS. used by Turnebus, which
was discovered by Lindsay in the Bodleian. Two views of the
history of the tradition are now held: (1) There were two editions
in antiquity, (4) one containing more or less the text of Plautus
himself, (ὁ) another containing a text which had been adapted for
later revivals of the plays. A in the main represents the first,
and P the second (Lindsay). (2) Both A and P have a common
origin in a text constructed about the time of Hadrian (Leo).

The plays are arranged in the MSS. in a rough alphabetical
order in which only the initial letters are regarded. The order
given above is found inthe P-group. It agrees in the main with
that given in A, except that the Bacchides has been placed after
the Efidicus, apparently on the strength of Bacch. 214 ‘etiam
epidicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo’.

Ed. pr.: George Merula, Venice, 1472.

Lexicon Plautinum, G. Lodge, 1go1 ; J. P. Waltzing, Louvain,
1900 (both unfinished): Delphin ed. (I. Operarius), 1679.

PLINY THE ELDER, C. Piinius Secunpus (23 or 24 B.c.—
A.D. 79).

Naturals Historia (37 bks.). About 200 MSS. in two groups.
(1) The older group is imperfect: A= Leidensis-Vossianus f. 4, 9th
cent. (bks. 2-6): B=Bambergensis M.V. το, roth cent. (32-37).
There are fragments of uncial MSS.: M=codex Moneus,
a palimpsest of 5/6th cent. from the monastery of S. Paul
in Lavanter Thal, Carinthia (bks. 11-15). N=Sessorianus
(Nonantulanus), 5th cent. palimpsest (bks. 23, 25). O=Vindo-
bonensis 233, 6th cent. (bks. 33, 34). P= Parisinus 9378, 5/6th
cent. (bk. 18. 87-99). H=Lucensis, 8th cent. (bk. 18. 309-365).
There are MSS. of 10/12th cent. containing valuable excerpts,
e.g. by Robert of Crikelade in England (12th cent.). (2) The
younger group, on which the text mainly depends, falls into two
classes. (a) D+G+V, a MS. of 11th cent., now in three parts.
D=Vatic. Lat. 3861 (bks. 1-19). G=Paris. Lat. 6796 (19-20).
V=Leid.-Voss. fol. 61 (bks. 20-36). F=Leidensis Lipsii vii,
11th cent. (bks. 1-38), a copy of D+ G@+V. R=Riccardianus
11th cent. (mutilated in 14-20, 23, 24, 38; 11-13 have been sup-
plied from an older text). (b) Of the second class the most

262 AUTHORITIES

important MS. is E= Parisinus Lat. 6795, 10/11th cent., mutilated
esp. in bks. 21-23.

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Hardouin),
1723: Lemaire, 1832.

PLINY THE YOUNGER, Carus P itnius Caecitius SEcunpus
(A.D. 61—cire. 113).

(τ) Panegyricus Traiano dictus. (2) Eprtstulae (9 bks). (3)
Correspondence with Trajan.

(τ) is preserved among the Panegyrici ueteres (q.v.). There is
also an Ambrosian palimpsest (ord. sup. FE. 147), 7/8th cent.

For (2) there are three sources: (a) MSS. containing bks.
1-5, of which the best are: R=Florentinus Ashburnhamensis
R.98, olim Riccardianus M.11.488,9/tothcent. F=Laurentianus
S. Marci 284, 10/11th cent. (ὦ) containing eight books, viz. 1-7
and 9g, e.g. Dresdensis D. 166, 15th cent. (c) containing nine
books, e.g. M=Laurentianus 47. 36, 1oth cent., in the same
hand as the Medicean of Tac. Anz. i-vi. V= Vat. 3864 is akin
to M, but only contains bks i-iv. Textual criticism is difficult
and uncertain. MV are thought to be superior to the rest in
the order of the words which they present, but their text shows
traces of the hand of some ancient scholar.

Ed. pr.: by Ludovicus Carbo, Venice, 1471 (1-7, 9); Ioannes
Schurener, Rome, circ. 14.74 (1-9).

(3) depends on a lost French MS. which contained both (2) and
(3). Avantius in 1502 used a copy of it made by Leander for
letters 41-121. For letters 1-40 a MS. has been found by
Hardy in the Bodleian made from Ioannes Iucundus’ copy of
this French codex, and apparently used by Aldus in 1508.

Index to (1) in C. G. Schwarz, 1746: to (2) in G. Cortius, 1734.

PLUTARCH (circ. A.D. 46-120).

(1) Βώι παράλληλοι (50, consisting of 23 pairs and 4 separate
lives, i.e. Artaxerxes Mnemon, Aratus, Galba, and Otho). (2)
Συγγράμματα ἠθικά, 83 works, mainly on philosophical subjects.
(3) Minor historical writings.

In the Lives an edition in 3 bks. containing respectively
9, 7, and 7 pairs of lives lies behind the present MS. tradition.
(a) These three books are preserved in whole or part in one
group of MSS. which has been called the Y-group. To this

PO CLASSICAL TEXTS 263

belong ABC D=Parisini 1671-2-3-4, 13/14th cent., which are
complete : and incomplete MSS. such as Laurentianus 206, roth
cent. (bk. 1), Laurent. 69. 6, A.D. 997 (bk. 3), Sangermanensis 319,
toth cent., and many others, showing that each of the three books
has acquired its own separate tradition. (ὁ) A recension of this
early edition in 3 bks., in which the order of the lives has been
altered, survives in the X-group of MSS. and in Photius;
e.g. St=Seitenstettensis, containing 8 pairs of lives) M=
Marcianus 385. F*=Parisinus 1676. F= Paris. 1677. Where
these MSS. contain lives outside the 8 pairs in St their text
belongs to the Y-group. (c) N=Matritensis N. 55, r4th cent.,
is not derived directly from either X or Y, but from a common
ancestor. The present order of the lives dates only from
Asulanus, the editor of the Aldine, 1509-19, and illustrates the
special interest felt by the men of the Renaissance in the Roman
lives. The basis of the order in the MSS. (Y) is Greek.

(2) In the Moralia the MSS. are not of uniform value through-
out all the treatises. Among the best are: E=Parisinus
1075 Ἐ)ΞΞ [53|-: 1675. D—Par. 1956, 11/r2th cent. F= Par. 1957,
11th cent. Urbinas 97, 11/12th cent. Athous 268, r4th cent.
Vindobonensis 148 (especially for Quaestiones Symposiacae).

Ed. pr.: Moraha, Aldus and Asulanus, Venice, 1509; Lives,
PJunta;, Florence, 1517.

Index : Wyttenbach’s Lexicon, Oxford, 1830. The Moralia
are cited by the pages of G. Xylander, Basel, 1560-1570.

TIuLt1us POLLUX (Πολυδεύκης) (d. A.D. 58).

᾿Ονομαστικόν, a dictionary of antiquities in ro bks.

All MSS. are held to descend from a codex once in the posses-
sion of Arethas of Caesarea. This did not give the text of the
Onomasticon, but only an epitome. The MSS. fall into four groups.
(1) M = Ambros. D. 34 superior, 10/11th cent. (2) S = Salman-
ticensis I. 2. 3, F= Par. gr. 2646, both of 15th cent. (3) A= Par.
Gr. 2670, 15thcent. (4) C= Palatinus Heidelbergensis 375, rath
cent., and others.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1502.

POLYBIUS (circ. 205-120 B.c.).

‘Ioropia, originally in 40 bks., of which 1-5 survive entire.

The best MS. of these is A= Vat. 124, 11th cent. It has been

264 AUTHORITIES

corrected in several hands. Many inferior MSS. _ Polybius
everywhere avoids hiatus.

Fragments of the lost books survive in F= codex Urbinas ΤΟ,
11th cent. (first published by F. Ursinus, Antwerp, 1582), and
in a number of MSS. copied from it; also in the Constantine
excerpts (q.v.) and in M= Vat. 73 of 1oth cent., a palimpsest con-
taining gnomic excerpts. Papyri represent a different tradition.

Ed. pr.: bks. 1-5, Vincentius Opsopoeus, 1530. Lat. Trans.
of 1-5 by Nicolaus Perrottus, 1473.

Index in Schweighauser’s ed., vol. viii, Leipzig, 1795.
POMPONIUS MELA, of Tingentera in Spain (cire. A.D. 43).

De Situ Orbis, in 3 bks. All MSS. are derived from Vat.
929, Ioth cent., which has the subscription ‘Fl. Rusticius
Helpidius Domnulus u(ir) c(larissimus) et sp(e)c(tabilis) com(es)
consistor(ianus) emendaui Rabennae’.

Ed. pr.: Zarotus, Milan, 1471. Index in Tzschucke’s ed.,
Leipzig, 1807.

PRIAPEA.

A collection of 80 poems to the god Priapus made under

Augustus. MSS. are late, e.g. A=Laurent. 33. 31, 14th cent.

Sextus PROPERTIUS (circ. 50-15 B.c.).

Elegies in 4 bks. Lachmann, on the strength of ii. 13 A, 25,
26, ‘Sat mea sit &c.,’ divides bk. 2 after poem ix. N=
Neapolitanus, now at Wolfenbiittel, inter Gudianos 224. Its date
has been fixed as early as the 12th cent. and as late as the 15th.
A =Vossianus 38, 14th cent. F=Laurentianus 36. 49, 15th cent.
L=Holkhamicus 333, Α. Ὁ. 1421. D=Daventriensis 1792, 15th
cent. W=Ottoboniano-Vaticanus 1514, 15th cent. Criticism
turns largely on the value assigned to N. Of the other MSS.
AF and DV form distinct groups. The archetype does not appear
to be older than the Carolingian period.

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472. Index: Phillimore, Oxford, 1905.
CLaupius PTOLEMAEUS (under Marcus Aurelius (a, p. 161—

180) according to Suidas).

(1) Τεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις (8 bks.). (2) Μεγάλη σύνταξις τῆς ἀστρονο-
pias, or Almagest (13 bks.). (3) Πρόχειροι κανόνες. (4) Κανὼν βασι-
λειῶν (preserved only in the Chronography of the Byzantine
Georgios Synkellos). (5) Φάσεις ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων καὶ συναγωγὴ

HOM TCLASSICAL TEXTS 265

ἐπισημασιῶν. (6) Ὑποθέσεις τῶν πλανωμένων. (7) ᾿Αρμονικά (7 bks.).
(8) Περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἡγεμονικοῦ. (9) ᾿Οπτικὴ πραγματεία (3 bks.,
preserved only in a Latin version). (10) Τετράβιβλος σύνταξις
μαθηματική (doubtful). The Centiloquium, a collection of sayings
from the Τετράβιβλος, is spurious.

Two small treatises on Astronomy, Περὶ ἀναλήμματος and ἅπλωσις
ἐπιφανείας σφαίρας, only survive, except for a few fragments in
cod. Ambros. Gr. 491, a palimpsest of 6th cent., in Latin versions
made from the Arabic.

(τ MSS. numerous, but their tradition has not been sufficiently
investigated. One of the most important is the Athous L.

(2) MSS. numerous and good. The two main groups are (a)
A= Par. 2389, 9thcent. B=Vat. 1594, 9th cent. C= Mare. 313,
toth cent. (ὁ) An inferior group, possibly derived from an
Alexandrine recension circ. A.D. 300.

(6) Par, Gr. 2390, 13th cent. (5) A=WVat. 318, 14th cent.
B=Vat. 1594, 9th cent. (6) An archetype can be constructed
from three late MSS. Vat. 208 and Marciani 323, 324.

lidd: pr: (1) Basel; 1593; (2) Basel, 1538; (4) m .Scaliger,
Thesaurus Temporum, 1606; (5) in D. Petavius, Uranologium,
1630; (6) in J. Bainbridge, Procli Sphaera, London, 1620; (7)
J. Wallis, Oxford, 1682; (8) I. Bullialdus, Paris, 1663; (10)
Nuremberg, 1535.

M. Fasius QUINTILIANUS (a. D. 35-95).

(1) Institutions Oratoriae libri xii. (2) The spurious Declama-
tiones in two collections ; το matores, 145 minores.

For (1) there are two families of MSS. The first contains
about two-sevenths of the complete text. To it belong Bn=
Bernensis 351, roth cent. N= Parisinus-Nostradamensis 18527,
toth cent. The second is best represented by A=Ambrosianus
E. 153 sup., 11th cent. Excerpts by the rhetor Iulius Victor.
Neither family is indispensable.

Ed. pr.: by Campanus, Rome, 1470.

Index: E, Bonnell’s lexicon, 1834: Lemaire, 1821.

For (2) in the mazores there are two groups with different
arrangement of the Declamationes. The best MSS. are (a) B=
Bambergensis M. iv. 13, roth cent. and V=Vossianus Q. 111,
Fo/rith cent. (6)-P=Parisinus 162390, 14th cent., and’ S=

266 AUTHORITIES

Sorbonnensis 629, 15th cent. Both Bamb. and Par. have the
subscription of Dracontius, which runs as follows in Bamb.
‘Descripsi et emendaui Domitius Dracontius de codice fratris
Hieri mihi et usib(us) meis et dis (? discipulis) omnib(us)’.

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1475 (9, το, 8); first complete ed., Georgius
Merula, Venice, 1481.

Index in α. Lehnert’s ed., 1905.

For the mznores the chief MSS. are: A=Montepessulanus
126, roth cent.: B= Monacensis 309, anno 1494: C=Chigianus
fol. H. viii. 262, 15th cent.

Ed. pr. Parma, 1404.

Index in C. Ritter’s ed., 1884.

QUINTUS CURTIUS Rurus (under Claudius, A.D. 41-54).

FAitstortae Alexandri Magni, in to bks., of which the first
two are lost.

The MSS. must all come from the same archetype, since all
exhibit the same lacunae. They fall into two classes: (1) The
older, divided into two groups, consisting of (a) P=Parisinus
5716, 9th cent., allied to which are fragments at Ziirich,
Vienna, and elsewhere ; (ὁ) F=Laurentianus 64. 35, 11th cent.,
B=Bernensis 451, 1toth cent., L=Leidensis 137, 1oth cent.,
V=Vossianus Q. 20, toth cent. (2) A group of late interpolated
MSS.

Ed. pr.: either Laver, Rome, or v. de Spira, Venice, both of
which were published circ. 1471.

Index: Delphin ed. (M. le Tellier), 1678; Lemaire, Paris,
1824; O. Eichert, Hannover, 1893.

QUINTUS SMYRNAEUS (end of 4th cent. a.D.).

Epic Τὰ pe? Ὅμηρον, in 14 bks., called Quintus Calaber, since
the principal MS. containing his works was procured by Cardinal
Bessarion in 1450 from Otranto in Calabria.

The MSS. are in two groups: (1) M=Monacensis 264, r5th
cent. (bks. i-iv. το, and xii), P= Parrhasianus nune Neapolitanus
168, 15th cent. (2) MSS. derived from the lost Hydruntinus, e. g.
V=Venetus Marcianus 455, written for Bessarion by J. Rhosos
of Crete. E'=Escurialensis Σ. I]. 6 and other late MSS.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, [1505].

RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM. See p. 237.

POR CLASSICAL’ TEXTS 267

C. SALLUSTIUS Crispus (86-35 B.c.).

(1) Bellum Catilinae. (2) Bellum Iugurthinum. (3) Fragmenta,

The MSS. fall into three classes: (1) Those with the lacuna
in Jug. 103. 2-112. 3. The foremost of these are : P= Parisinus
Sorbonianus 500, ΤΟΙ cent. P'=Par. 1576, roth cent., and
Vat.-Pal. 889 (Nazarianus). (2) MSS. which supply this
lacuna, e.g. Vat. 3325 and Palatinus 883, both of 12th cent.
Both classes descend from a common archetype. One token of
this is the unmeaning /eliciter in Tug. 103. 2. There are many
recentiores containing short sentences that are missing in the
better MSS. There was a revival of interest in Sallust in the
Ist cent. A.p., which continued till the 4th. From the 6th to
the 8th he was neglected, but he is known to Lupus, Windukind,
and the Annales Fuldenses of the gth and roth cent., the age of
the best MSS. The aim of criticism is to reconstruct the text
of the 1st and 2nd cent. a. Ὁ.

Fragments of the Hisforiae (originally in 5 bks.) survive in
V=Vat. 3864, roth cent.; in the Vatican fragment (Reginensis
1283); and in Aurelianensis 169, part of which is preserved at
Berlin. The two last are of 3rd/4th cent. and came from Fleury.
. Of the spurious works the Ad Caesarem senem de republica is

preserved in V, and two Jnuectiuae in A=Guelferb. Gud. 335,
roth cent., and in H=Harleian. 2716, 9/toth cent., and others.

Ed: pr.:; Venice, 1470.

Index in R. Dietsch’s ed. 1859. Index to Fragments in
B. Maurenbrecher’s ed. 1891.

SCRIPTORES HISTORIAE AUGUSTAE (circ. A.D. 300).

A collection of Lives of the Emperors in continuation of
Suetonius and Marius Maximus, covering the period from
Hadrian to Carus and his sons (117-284). It is defective for the
years 244-253. It includes the work of six authors: Aelius
Spartianus(7lives), Vulcacius Gallicanus (1), Julius Capitolinus (14),
Trebellius Pollio (6), Flavius Vopiscus (10), Aelius Lampridius (4).

The main authority is Vaticanus-Palatinus 899, 9/1oth cent.
The Bambergensis E. III. το, which was once thought to have in-
dependent authority, is now recognized to be an 11th cent. copy
of the Palatinus (cf. Mommsen, Philol. Schrift. 352). Traces of an
independent tradition are found in the Excerpta Cusana.

268 AUTHORITIES

Ed. pr.: B. Accursius, Milan, 1475 (based on Vaticanus 5301,
a member of the Palatine group).

Index: C. Lessing, Leipzig, 1906.

L. AnnAEUS SENECA (wrote between A. ἢ. 34-41).

(1) Controuersiae, in 10 bks., 3, 6, and 8 being lost. (2) Swasoriae.

The chief MSS. are: A=Antverpiensis 411, toth cent. B=
Bruxellensis 9581-9595, roth cent. These are copies of a lost
codex. V=Vat. 3872, roth cent., supplies words that are
missing in AB, but it is a question whether its excellence is
authentic or due to interpolation.

All these MSS. are from the same archetype. A and B are
the prime authority. There is an Epztome of the Controuersiae |
made in the ath or 5th cent. which preserves a textual tradition |
different from that of the complete text. Best MS.: Montepessu- Ὁ
lanus 126, 11th cent.

Ed. pr.: first printed with the works of the younger Seneca.
Venice, 1490.

Lucius AnNAEUS SENECA (died A.D. 65).

(a) Tragedies. Nine survive: Herc. Furens, Troades,
Phoenissae, Med., Phaedra, Oedip., Agamemnon, Thyestes; Here.
Oetaeus. The Octavia is spurious.

E=FEtruscus siue Laurentianus 37. 13, 11/12th cent., is by
far the best MS. It is supported by R=the Ambrosian palim-
psest, and by excerpts preserved in T=Thuaneus nunc Paris.

8071, 9/1oth cent. There are two 14th cent. copies of E, viz. ἢ

M=Anbros. D. 276, and N= Vat. 1769.

The other MSS. spring from a circle of scholars at Padua, and
present a badly interpolated text. None are older than the 14th
cent. A number of them are descended from a MS. used by an
English Dominican, Treveth (died 1328).

Diui Claudii’AroxoAoK’vtwos. Sangallensis 569, 10/11th cent.,
is by far the best MS. Valentianensis 393, 9/1oth cent., is from
the same archetype. Other MSS. are negligible.

(b) Dialogues. The following have been handed down under
the title of Dialogi: (1) De prouidentia. (2) De constantia saprentts.
(3-5) De ira in 3 bks. (6) De consolatione ad Marciam. (7) De
uita beata. (8) De otto. (9) De tranquillitate animi. (10) De
breuitate uitae. (11) De consolatione ad Polybium,. (12) De con-
solatione ad Heluiam matrem.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS— 269

The best authority is Ambros. C. go inf., 10/11th cent. The
later MSS., although corrupt, preserve a distinct tradition.

Outside this corpus are the following writings :—

(13) De clementia. (14) De benefictis, in 7 bks. Best MS. is
N=Vat. Pal. 1547 (Nazarianus), 9/1oth cent. It is disputed
whether the inferior MSS., some of which are of high antiquity, |
—e.g. Reginensis 1529, 9/1oth cent.—represent a separate
tradition. In the De clementia there is beside these A= Erfur-
tensis Amplonianus Q. 3, 12th cent., ending at 1. 18. 2.

(15) NaTURALES QuaeEsTIONES, in 7 bks. MSS. numerous.
None are older than the 12th cent. They fall into three classes.
(1) Integri (Φ), e.g. H= Paris. 8624, 12/13th cent., J=Oxoniensis,
Coll. Di. Joh. Bapt. 36, 13th cent. (2) Zacunost (Δ), which omit
iii. 25. 6-iv. a, e. g. A=Leidensis-Voss. lat. oct. 55, 13th cent.
(3) Vulgares, which display a mixture of the two other groups
but are most closely related to the Lacunost.

(16) EpistuLtAE Morates, in 20 bks. Preserved in two
volumes from the 9/12th cent. Vol. i=bks. 1-13, Epp. 1-88,
rests mainly on p=Parisinus 8540, roth cent., which has to be
supplemented in parts by P= Par. 8658 A, roth cent., L= Laurent.
76. 40, 9/1oth cent., V=Marcianus 270 arm. 22. 4, and others.
Vol. ii=bks. 14-20, Epp. 89-124, depends mainly on B=
Bambergensis v. 14, gth cent., and A=Argentoratensis C vi. 5,
g/toth cent., burnt in 1870 but fortunately collated by Biicheler.
After the 12th cent. the letters are preserved in one volume, e. g.
in Abrincensis 239, 12th cent.

Ed. pr.: Tragedies, Ferrara, circ. 1474-1484; Moralia et Epp.,
Naples, 1475; Vat. Quaest., Venice, 1490. Index to Tragedies in
J. C. Schroeder’s ed. Delft, 1729, and in J. Pierrot, Paris, 1832.

Quintus SERENUS (Sammonicus) (fl. cire. a.D. 230 if he is
rightly identified with the son of Sammonicus Serenus).

Liber medicinalis in 1107 hexameters. All MSS. descend
from a collection of medical and scientific writings made by
a certain Jacobus for Charlemagne. Two copies of this were
made: (1) Turicensis 78, gth cent. (2) The second is not extant,
but is the parent of a large number of MSS., e.g. Vossianus
i233, 10th cent.;.Senensis, 11th cent.

Ed. pr.: without place or date (? Milan, 1484).

270 AUTHORITIES
SEXTUS EMPIRICUS (circ. a.p. 190). Philosopher.

(1) Πυρρώνειοι ὑποτυπώσεις, in 3 bks. (2) Ὑπομνήματα σκεπτικά

(πρὸς τοὺς μαθηματικούς), in 11 bks.

The chief MSS. are: (1) M=Monac. gr. 439, 14th cent. (2)
L=Laur. 81, 11, a.D. 1465. (3) E=Par. 1964, 15th cent. (P,
in Weber). A=Par. 1963, A.D. 1534 (P,). B=Berolinensis
Phillippicus 1518, A.D. 1542.

Ed. pr.: Latin version of (1) by H. Stephanus, Paris, 1562;
of (2) by Gentianus Hervetus Aurelius, Antwerp, 1569; Greek
text, P. and J. Chouét, Geneva, 1621.

Ti. Catius SILIUS Ira icus (a. Ὁ. 25-101).

Punica, 17 bks. The tradition is bad since Silius was neg-
lected in antiquity and little read in mediaeval times. His text
was rediscovered in 1416-1417 by Poggio at St. Gall. Poggio’s
copy (which like the original MS. has disappeared) is the parent
of all existing MSS. Of these the best are: L=Lauren-
tianus 37. 16, A. D. 1457, F=Aedil. Florent. Eccl. 196, 15th cent.,
O=Reginensis-Oxoniensis 314, 15th cent., and V=Vaticanus
1652, 15th cent. At the end of the 16th cent. a MS. apparently
of the gth cent. was discovered at Cologne. It has since been
lost, but is known from the reports of L. Carrio (Emendationum
&c. libri, 1576) and F. Modius (Nouantiquae lect. 1584).

Ed. pr.: Rome, 1471. Index in Lemaire’s ed., Paris, 1823.

SOPHOCLES (496-406 B.c.).

Seven tragedies. A large fragment of a Satyric play, the
ἸΙχνευταί is preserved in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (No. 1174).

MSS.: L=Laurentianus 32. 9, 11th cent., containing the
seven plays of Sophocles, seven of Aeschylus (where it is cited
as M), and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. (Facsimile,
Thompson and Jebb, London, 1885.) A=Parisinus 2712, 13th
cent., containing six plays of Euripides, seven of Sophocles, and
seven of Aristophanes. f or G=Laurentianus 2725, written in
A.D. 1282, contains Az, Elect., O. T., Phil.

There are large numbers of MSS. which show a close affinity
to L or A but are of no independent value. Besides these there
is the group known as the ‘Libri Tricliniani’, containing the
recension made by Demetrius Triclinius cire. 1300, The best
MS. of this bad group is T= Parisinus 2711, 14th cent.

BOR ECEASSICAL: TEXTS 271

The seven surviving plays represent a selection made probably
by the same early scholar who edited the selections from
_ Aeschylus and Euripides (q.v.). The text which lies behind
this selection is undoubtedly the Alexandrine text, gravely
corrupted and not as well attested as in Euripides. The text
presented by all the MSS. is singularly uniform, e. g. all omit
Antigone 1167 ζῆν τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμψυχον ἡγοῦμαι νεκρόν, which is
known only from Athenaeus, and this uniformity led to the view
originated by Burges and strongly supported by Cobet and
others that all MSS. were ultimately derived from L which is
conspicuously the best. But L omits O. 7. 800 which is present
inallthe later MSS. And the old scholia are not all derived from
L. Hence this view has now been surrendered by most critics.
L, it is clear, was copied from a faulty archetype, and then
corrected by the second hand L’? from another MS. which
represented a slightly different but independent tradition. This
tradition survives in A, which is of great importance since it
represents fully a tradition whose readings were only selected
by the second hand of ἵν. Γ is a ‘contaminated’ MS. which
combines the two traditions given by L and A.

The scholia are best preserved in L. They are largely founded
on the learning of Didymus (Ist cent. B. c.) and contain references
to still earlier scholars, e.g. Praxiphanes (O. C. goo), circ. 300 B. 6.
The latest authority quoted is Herodian (circ. 160 B. c.). They do
not imply a text perceptibly sounder than what now survives, and
support the view that the tragic texts had been largely corrupted
before the Alexandrine era. Edition by P. N. Papageorgius,
Leipzig, 1888; cf. Jebb, Sophocles, Cambridge, 1897, pp. xxvisqq.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1502, based principally on Marcianus 467,
a MS. akin to A.

Index: Beatson, Cambridge, 1830; Leavca, Ellendt, Berlin,
1872; Dindorf, Leipzig, 1870. Index to scholia uetera in Papa-
georgius’ ed., Leipzig, 1888.

P. Papinius STATIUS (? a.p. 45-96).

(1) Zhebats in 12 bks. Best MS. is P=Parisinus 8051
(Puteaneus), late gth cent. It forms a class by itself. The best
representatives of the second class are B=Bambergensis N. 4.
τι, 11thcent.; D=St. John’s College, Cambridge (Dovoriensis),
1oth cent.; K=Gudianus 54, 10/11th cent.; N=Philippicus

272 AUTHORITIES

Cheltoniensis, 10/11th cent.; Q=Parisinus 10317, roth cent.
P and the rest are derived from the same archetype, probably
a minuscule MS. of the 8th cent., P being a later copy than
the exemplar from which the rest are derived. The archetype
probably had a number of variants which, since they cannot be
explained on grounds of graphical corruption, are held by
Phillimore to point to a second edition of the poem by the author.
As most of these δεύτεραι φροντίδες are preserved by P, its im-
portance for the text is very great. Scholia attributed to
Lactantius Placidus who is otherwise unknown.

(2) Achilleis, a fragment in 2 bks. PQK as above, and
Etonensis, ? 11th cent.

(3) Siuae, in 5 bks. P=a codex found by Poggio in 1416 or
1417, probably of 9/roth cent., now lost. M=Matritensis M. 31,
written circ. 1417. A*=readings of P written by Angelo
Politian in the margin of a copy of the ed. princeps now in the
Corsini Library. Many vulgar MSS. of little value.

All MSS., it is now generally believed, are descended from P
through M. M, which is therefore the prime authority for the
text, is probably the copy which Poggio had made for himself by
a scribe of whose ignorance he complains. A*, according to
Politian’s own statement, were taken from the exemplar which
Poggio brought from France. This exemplar cannot be the
same as M since M contains a line (i. 4. 86) which Politian says
was absent from his original. It must therefore have been P
itself, and A* is therefore of high value. Against this view v.
H. W. Garrod, Οὐ Rev. 1912, p. 263.

Ed. pr.: Zheb. and Achill. circ. 1470; Siluae (with Tib.,
Catull., Propert.), Venice, 1472. Index in Delphin ed. (Beraldus),
1685, and in Lemaire, Paris, 1830.

lonannes STOBAEUS (circ. A.D. 500).

᾿Ανθολόγιον in 4 bks., arranged in two τεύχη or volumes.
Hence the separate titles ExAoyaé and ᾿Ανθολόγιον came into use
during the Middle Age.

MSS. of Eclogae : F=Farnesinus, bibl. nat. Neapolit. III. p. 15
(Cyrill. 299) (paper), 14th cent. P= Parisinus 2129 (paper), 15th
cent. L= Laurent. pl. 8.22, 14th cent., containing a gnomology
of sacred and profane writers.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 273

MSS. of Florilegium : (1) $= Vindobonensis Sambuci (phil. gr.
67), 11th cent.; Marcianus class. iv. 29, 14/16th cent., from
which ed. pr. is printed. (2) M=Escurialensis Mendozae, no. go,
11/t2th cent. ; A= Par. gr. 1984, 14th cent. (a much inferior MS.).

Ed. pr.: “Av@., V. Trincavellus, 1536; “ExA., G. Canter,
Plantin, Antwerp, 1575.

STRABO (circ. 64 B.c.—A.D. 19).

Γεωγραφικά, ἴῃ 17 bks. The text is exceedingly corrupt. For
bks. 1-9 the best MS. is A= Paris. 1397, 12th cent. C=Paris.
1393, 13/14th cent., contains bks. 1-17 with a large lacuna in
bk. 7. Fragments of a MS., possibly of the 7th cent., were dis-
covered by Cozza-Luzi (1875) in the Cryptoferratensis, a palim-
psest in the Vatican.

There exist also Tables of Contents (κεφάλαια) and Epitomes,
e.g. Ep. Palatina in Heidelbergensis 398, 1oth cent.: Ep. Vati-
cana in Vat. 482, 14th cent. The £clogae by Georgios Gemistos
(Plethon), preserved in Venetus 379, are of no value.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Venice, 1516.

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranouituus (circ. A.D. 75-160).

(1) De vita Caesarum (8 bks.). All MSS. are descended from
a lost archetype which was mutilated at the beginning (perhaps
a copy of a MS. written in capitals and known to Servatus Lupus
in A.D. 844). The best extant MSS. are: M=Parisinus 6115
(Memmianus), gth cent.; G=Gudianus 268, 11th cent.; V=
Vaticanus 1904, 11th cent., ending at Calig. 3. 3.

(2) De dlustribus grammaticis et claris rhetortbus. This is
a fragment of the treatise De viris illustribus, and is preserved
in the MSS. of the Dia/ogus and Germania of Tacitus (q.v-).

Ed. pr.: Campanus, Rome, 1470. Index in Delphin ed.
(Babelon), 1684.

SUIDAS (circ. A. D. 976).

Dictionary of Words and Things. The chief MSS. are: A=
Parisinus 2625, 13th cent., and V=Vossianus F. 2.

Ed. pr.: Chalcondylas, Milan, 1499.

SULPICIA (wife of Calenus, Mart. X. xxxv, xxxviii).
Seventy hexameter lines are known from the editions of

473 hy

274 AUTHORITIES

Merula (1498) and Ugoletus (1499), which are derived from
a codex Bobiensis found in 1493 and now lost. The authenticity
of the poem has been questioned.

Pus.itius SYRUS (fl. 50 B.c.).

Sententiae preserved from his mimes in various collections.

A collection is mentioned by A. Gellius 17. 14. The collection
has now to be reconstructed from (1) O=collection in Veronen-
sis 168, A.D. 1329. (2) Palatine collection M in Vaticanus 239,
1o/1ith cent. (3) Ziirich collection Z=Turic. C. 78, gth cent.
and Monac. 6369, 11th cent. (4) Seneca collection Σ, which is
entitled ‘Senecae Prouerbia’, preserved in a large number of
MSS., e.g. P= Paris, 2676, gth cent. (5) The Freising collec-
tion, Y= Monac. 6294, 11th cent., is a combination of (2) and (4).

Ed. pr.: in Erasmus, Dionys. Cato, Strassburg, 1515.

Index in W. Meyers’ ed., Leipzig, 1880.

CorneELius TACITUS (consul a.p. 98, d. after 117).

The minor works all descend from a codex of the t1oth cent.,
discovered at Hersfeld by Enoch of Ascoli in 1455 and brought
by him to Rome. This contained: (1) the Germania; (2) Agri-
cola ; (3) the Dialogus and a fragment of Sueton. de grammaticts
et rhetoribus. It has been shown recently that the only portion
of this codex which survives is now at Jesi in the library of
Count Balleani. It contains eight original leaves of the Agricola
bound up with a 15th cent. transcript of the remaining six leaves.
For the Agricola accordingly this is the archetypal MS.
(C. Annibaldi, 1907).

(1) Dialogus de oratoribus. Two copies of Enoch’s MS. were
made, the first, X, by a careful but ignorant scribe, who did not
understand the contractions; the second, Y, by a scribe with
more pretentions to scholarship. To X belong, A= Vat. 1862
and B=Leidensis Perizonianus 18; to Y belong, C= Neapoli-
tanus Farnesianus iv. c. 21, D=Vat. 1518, and others. The
tendency among critics has been to prefer the Y-group, but any
text must be eclectic.

(2) The Agricola. Jesi MS. (supra) supplemented by Tole-
tanus 49. 2 (a direct copy), and F=Vat. 3429, written by
Pomponius Laetus, A= Vat. 4498. The text of Puteolanus cire.
1475 is from a MS. akin to ΓΔ.

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 275

(3) Germania, written in 98. The Renaissance copies of
Enoch’s MS. (v. supra) fall into two groups: X including B=
Vat. 1862, b=Leidensis Perizonianus; Y including C= Vat.
1518, c=Farnesianus. The lost Hummelianus is now recog-
nized to have been a descendant of Enoch’s MS.

(4) Historiarum libri (from A.D. 69 to the death of Domitian),
probably in 14 bks., of which 1-4 and half of 5 survive. The
text, together with Annals 11-16, depends entirely on Mediceus
68. 2, 11th cent., from Monte Cassino.

(5) Ab excessu diut Augusti annalium [γι (continued to a.D.
69), probably in 16 bks., of which 1-4, part of 5, 6, and 11-16
survive. The text of 1-6 depends entirely on Mediceus 68. 1,
gth cent., from Korvey. For 11-16 v. (4) supra.

Edd. pr.: Ann. 11-16, Hist, Germ., Dial. Venice (J. Spirensis),
circ. 1470; Amn. 1-5, Beroaldus, Rome, 1515; Agric.(with Pliny,
Panegyr. and Petronius) Puteolanus, Milan, circ. 1482.

Lexicon Taciteum, A. Gerber and A. Greef, Leipzig, 1903.

Pusiius TERENTIUS Arer (d. 159 B.c.).

Wrote six comedies, all of which are extant: (1) Andria (166
B.c.). (2) Hecyra (165). (3) Heautontimorumenos (163). (4)
Eunuchus (161). (5) Phormto (161). (6) Adelphoe (160).

The best MS. is A= Vaticanus 3226 (Bembinus), 4/5th cent.
written in rustic capitals. It belonged to Bernard Bembo, father
of Pietro Bembo. All other MSS. are interpolated and are
derived from the recension made by Calliopius, a grammarian of
unknown date. They fall into three groups, of which 6 the
older approximates to the text of A, y is further removed, while
μ have a mixed text.

8=D Victorianus, Laurent. 38. 24, roth cent. G Decurtatus,
Vat. Lat. 1640, 11th cent. V Fragm. Vindobonense, Vind. Phil.
263, roth cent. Contains :—Andr.g12-981 ; Ad. Per. and 26-158.

y=P Parisinus Lat. 7859, 9/toth cent. Illustrated C Vati-
canus Lat. 3868, 9/roth cent. Illustrated. B Basil. Vat. H. 79,
toth cent. Isa copy of C with traces of the readings of D.

p=F Ambrosianus H. 75 mfr. toth cent. Illustrated. L
Lipsiensis, Stadtbibl. Rep. 1. 37, roth cent. E Riccardianus
a (528) rth cent.

XX

΄

It is probable that the Palliatae of Terence were published in
2

276 AUTHORITIES

a standard edition soon after his death. Hence the original
prologues are preserved, and also the original endings to {πε
plays. The Andria, it is true, has two spurious endings, but
they are absent from the best and oldest MSS., and were never
included in any of the standard recensions. The text has been
preserved by a long line,of scholars beginning in the second
century B.c. with 1., Accius (the tragedian), Volcacius Sedigitus,
L. Aelius Stilo, and M. Terentius Varro, and continued by
M. Valerius Probus (1st cent. A.p.), Aemilius Asper, Arruntius
Celsus, Helenius Acro, Euanthius, Aelius Donatus (4th cent.
A. D.). The Periochae or metrical arguments to the plays were
composed by C. Sulpicius Apollinaris of Carthage, the teacher
of Aulus Gellius and the Emperor Pertinax.

The condition of the text in the 4/5th centuries A.D. is
shown by the Bembine A, which in spite of its manifest supe-
riority could hardly be read with comfort by the ordinary reader
of that time. The task of making the text more readable was
undertaken by a certain Calliopius—a Greek like Euanthius in
all probability, and not a Roman of high rank like many of the
redactors of the 4/6th cent. a.p. The date of this recension is
uncertain. It must be later than the first half of the 2nd cent.
A.D. since it contains the Periochae of Apollinaris, and is
perhaps later than the middle of the 4th cent., since the Dida-
scaliae which it gives seem to be influenced by the Prefaces of
Aelius Donatus. All the MSS. except A show the influence of
the Calliopian recension. There is considerable doubt, however,
as to the right principle of classification. Some critics (esp.
Usener, Rh. M. 28. 409; Leo, ibid. 38. 335) have placed the
illustrated MSS. PC F in a separate class from the rest. But
there is evidence that D rests upon an illustrated MS., and the
illustrations in P and C do not always agree with the inscriptions
at the beginning of the scenes and probably do not come from
the same source as the text. It is still disputed whether class ὃ
or class y represent most accurately the original Calliopian
recension. The view (in the main that of Dziatzko and
Ε. Hauler) adopted in the classification given above is that
class y contains the truest representatives of the Calliopian
recension, which was greatly in vogue after he 5th century
owing to the readable texts which it provided. It influenced

FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 277

other texts akin to the Bembine A and its readings were
imported into them. Such texts are represented by class 6.
Class 6 accordingly stands nearest to the text of A, class y is
further removed. Whether this view be right or not is of little
practical consequence since the text of Terence depends almost
wholly on A.

Commentaries and Schoha :—

The most important commentary is that which passes under
the name of Aelius Donatus (4th cent.). It includes all the plays
with the exception of the Heaut. It is of considerable use in
restoring the text: e.g. in Adelph. 522 Donatus preserves the
correct reading musere nimis cupio, where A has mtser utuos
cupio and the other MSS. musere cupio. It also contains
valuable information concerning the Greek originals of the plays.
The work of Donatus, however, has not survived in its original
form, but has been overlaid with much later work. No satis-
factory critical edition exists. The commentary of Lugraphius
is not older than the roth cent. and is of little value. Occasion-
ally a possible reading is found in it: e.g. Phorm. 175 retinere
an uero amuittere accepted by Umpfenbach; retinere amare
amuittere codd.; retinere amorem an muittere, Bothe. There are
scholia in ADGECF and in Monacensis 14420 of 11th cent.

The swbscriptio in the Calliopian MSS. is generally found at
the end of each play ‘ Calliopius recensui(t)’. In PCB it occurs
at the end of the Phormio in the form ‘Terenti Afri explicit
comoedia Phormio feliciter Calliopio bono scholastico ’.

In A the plays are arranged in what was (wrongly) supposed
to be the order of their composition: Andr., Eun., Heaut., Phor.,
Hec., Ad. The other MSS. present different arrangements.

Ed. pr. : Strassburg, cire. 1470. Index in Delphin ed. (Camus),
1675.

THEOCRITUS (fl. circ. 270 Β.6.). Bucolic poems.

His poems were originally published separately. Hence the
name εἰδύλλια, just as Pindar’s poems are called εἴδη, because
each is written in its εἶδος ἁρμονίας. In the age of Sulla the
poems were collected with those of other Bucolic poets into
a corpus by Artemidorus, whose son Theon published a com-
mentary. Other scholars edited them subsequently, e.g. Munatius

278 AUTHORITIES

(contemporary with Herodes Atticus), Amarantus (contemporary
with Galen). No codex is older than the 13th cent. K=Am-
brosianus 222, 13th cent. M=Vat. 915, 13th cent. B=
Patavinus, a lost codex of Bucaros (Capodivacca): its readings
are preserved in the Juntine edition and that of Callierges,
both published in 1516. W=Vat. 1824, 14th cent. L=Par. 2831,
14th cent. Tr=Par. 2832, belonging to Demetrius Triclinius
(also known as M). C=Ambrosianus B. 75, 15/16th cent., which
alone preserves xxx "Quai τῶ yaderd. D=Par. 2726, 14th cent.

The traditional order, which is disregarded by Wilamowitz,
dates only from Stephanus’ edition of 1566.

Besides poems 1-16, which are contained in nearly all good
MSS., there are indications of two larger collections which have
been designated Φ and Π. Both contain 1-16, 25, Meydpa, 17,
Biwvos ἐπιτάφιος, 22 and 18, Φ alone contains 20, 21, Ἔρως δραπέτης,
19, ᾿Αδώνιδος ἐπιτάφιος, εἰς νεκρὸν "Adwrw, 23, ᾿Ἐπιθαλάμ. Ax. Malone
contains 24, 26, 28, 27, 29, Ἐπιγράμματα and Πέλεκυς. In the
above MSS. ¢=VLTr.,, n=BCD.

In 1, 3-13 K is of most value. It is closely followed by M
and B. In 14, 2, 15-18 K is still of high importance, though
the ¢-group is indispensable.

Ed. pr.: Milan, 1480 or 1481 (printed with Hesiod).

Index: Rumpel’s Lexicon, Leipzig, 1879.

THEOGNIS (second half of 6th cent. B.c.).

Elegiac poems in two books: I, lines 1-1230. 11, containing
158 lines of love poetry (Musa Paedica).

The best MS. is A=Parisinus 388, 1oth cent. (sometimes
called the Mutinensis, although it was never at Modena but was
brought by the French in the Napoleonic wars at the beginning
of the 19th cent. from somewhere in North Italy). It is the sole
authority for the second book. O=Vaticanus 915, 13th cent, is
also of high value. There is a considerable number of inferior
MSS. which are of little value.

The condition of the text is discussed on p. 46. The case for
the authenticity of all or nearly all the Theognidea is best put
by E. Harrison, Cambridge, 1902.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, Venice, 1495, with Theocritus 1-30.

Index: in J. Sitzler’s ed., Heidelberg 1880: Poet. Min. Gr,
ed. Gaisford, vol. iii.

POR ‘CLASSICAL TEXTS 279

THEOPHRASTUS (circ. 372-287 B.c.).

Χαρακτῆρες in 32 chapters, dating probably from the beginning
of the Byzantine age (6th cent. a.D.).

All MSS. descend from a mutilated archetype. In this an
introduction was prefixed by the interpolator as well as epilogues
to some of the chapters. From this edition descend: A= Par.
ἵει ΞΟ, 10/iith-cent., B= Par, Gr. 1983, roth cent., V= Vat.
Gr. 110, 13th cent. It is still debated whether the inferior MSS.
of 14/16th cent. have any intrinsic value, and Cobet and Diels
deny that they have. AB contain characters 1-15 and 30.
§ 6-16; V the last 15. It is the sole authority for 29 and the
greater part of 30. M=Monacensis Gr. 505, 15th cent., known
as the Munich Epitome, contains 1-21 in a shortened form.

Ed. pr.: Pirckheimer, Nuremberg, 1527 (15 Characters) ;
G. B. Camozzi in Aristotle, Venice, 1552 (23 Characters) ;
Casaubon, 1599 (28 Characters); Amaduzzi, Parma, 1786 (the
first to contain 29-30 from V).

Index in H. Diels’ ed., Oxford, 1909.

(2) Περὶ φυτῶν ἱστοριας, 9 bks. (3) Περὶ φυτῶν αἰτιῶν, 6 bks. (4)
A fragment Περὶ λίθων. (5) Περὶ πυρός. (6) ΠΕερὶ αἰσθήσεων καὶ
αἰσθητῶν. (7) Ἔκ τῶν μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, and shorter fragments of
other works. ΄

MSS.: (2), (3) The best is U=Vaticanus Urbinas 61. M=
Medicei Laurent. plut. 85, codd. 3 et 23. (4) A=Vat.;1302.
B= Vat. 1305. C=Vat.-Urb. 108. (5) Aas in (4). F=Lauren-
fianus Ὁ] 87 50. PR==Par. 1921. (6) Ε P as in(s5). (7) Aas in
(4). B=Laurentianus pl. 28. 45.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1498, with Aristotle.

Index in I. (ἃ: Schneider’s ed., vol. v, Leipzig, 182r.

THUCYDIDES (circ. 460-400 B.C.).

History of the Peloponnesian War in ὃ bks. Marcellinus 58
mentions an arrangement in 13 bks. and Diodorus 12. 37 one in
g. The fresh introduction to v. 26 seems to indicate that
Thucydides’ plan included originally only the Archidamian War.

A=Cisalpinus siue Italus, Par. suppl. Gr. 255, 11/12th cent.
B=Vat. 126, 11th cent. E=Heidelbergensis 252 (Palatinus),
t1th cent. (the only good codex containing the lives) C= .
Laurentianus plut. 69. 2, early roth cent. F=Monacensis 430

280 AUTHORITIES

(Augustanus), 11th cent. G=Monacensis 228 (paper), 13th cent.,
upper margin damaged. M=Britannicus, Mus. Brit. 11. 727,
11th cent. H= Par. 1734, 15th cent.

These fall into two groups: (1) CG. (2) BAEFM. Bothare
ultimately to be referred to the same archetype. It is noticed
by Η. 5. Jones that they are more in conflict in bks. 1-2 than in
the remaining books. A reading supported by CGE, C GM, and
occasionally by GM, is not to be rejected lightly. After vi. 92. 5 B
and H follow a separate recension not found in the other MSS.
This often preserves the true reading,

The papyrus fragments O=Oxyrhynchium no. 16, 1st cent.,
containing iv. 36 ; W=Faiumense, containing viii. 91, agree with
the codd. save in minor details. O does not favour either group:
W agrees with CG.

Valla’s translation, published in 1452, contains valuable read-
ings, due either to his own conjectures or to the MSS. which he
used. The quotations in ancient writers such as Dionysius
Halicarnassensis rarely outweigh the evidence of the MSS.
Scholia are scanty and of little value.

Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1502.

Index: Von Essen, Berlin, 1887; Lexicon, Bétant, Geneva,
1843.

A.sius TIBULLUS (died 19 B.c.).

Elegies in 2 bks.: the third book contains a collection of
poems by Lygdamus, the Panegyricus Messallae, and poems op
Sulpicia.

The tradition is late and bad. The best MSS. are A=
Ambrosianus R. 26 sup., 14th cent.; V=Vat. 3270, 15th cent.
Both are derived from the same source, A being the better. ¥=
the recentiores, which are really editions made by the scholars of
the Renaissance (cf. p. 102). The lost /vagmentum Cutacianum
was of greater importance than any existing MS. Some of its
readings are known from Scaliger’s notes, which are preserved
at Leyden.

There are excerpts belonging to the 10th and rith cent., the
Frisingensia (preserved in Monacensis 6292) being the most
valuable.

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472 Index in Delphin ed. (P. Silvius),
1680,

HORCEASSICAL (| TEXTS 281

TIMOTHEUS (circ. 448-358 B.c.). Fragment of a citharoedic
Nomos entitled Πέρσαι was discovered in 1g02 in a grave near
Abusir, Egypt. The papyrus, which dates from the 4th cent.
B.C., is now in the Berlin Museum (P. 9875).

Ed. pr. with index: Wilamowitz-Méllendorff, Leipzig, 1903.

Gaius VALERIUS FLACCUS Sertinus Batsus (d. circ.
A. D. 90).

Epic, Argonautica, in 8 bks.

V=Vaticanus 3277, 9th cent., and S=Sangallensis (containing
i-iii and iv, 1-317), now lost, but known through Poggio’s
apographum Matritensis, x. 81. The Sangallensis preserves the
same tradition as the Vaticanus, but is not a copy. A further
source has been sought in a lost codex quoted by Carrio in his
edition, Antwerp, 1565.

Ed. pr.: Bologna, 1474. Index in Lemaire’s ed., Paris, 1824.

VALERIUS MAXIMUS (under Tiberius).

Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri ix. Abridgements by
Iulius Paris and Ianuarius Nepotianus. The direct textual tradi-
tion rests upon A= Bernensis 366, gth cent., and L=Florentinus
1899 (Ashburnhamensis), 9th cent., which come from a similar
source. There is also a valuable indirect tradition in Vaticanus
4929, 1oth cent., of Paris’ abridgement, which was made from
a MS. of high quality. Bk. x, de praenominibus, found in
this abridgement, isa stray epitome of another work (possibly the
Exempla of Hyginus) which has become part of Paris’ epitome.

Ed. pr.: Strassburg, circ. 1470. Index in Delphin ed. (P. J.
Cantel), 1679.

Marcus Terentius VARRO, of Reate (116-27 B. c.).

(1) De lingua Latina, in 25 bks., of which 5-10 survive in
Mediceus 51. 10, r1th cent, a MS. from Monte Cassino in
a Lombardic hand. It contains also the Pro Cluentio of Cicero
and the Ad Herennium. All other MSS. of the De lingua are
descended from it.

Ed*pr.: Kome,‘circ. 147%.

(2) Rerum rusticarum hbri iii. The tradition is the same as
in the works of Cato (q. v.).

Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472, in the Scriptores de Re Rustica.

Index in vol. iii of Keil’s ed., 1go2.

282 AUTHORITIES

Gaius VELLEIUS Parercutus (under Tiberius Α. Ὁ. 14-37).

Historiae Romanae, in 2 bks. The only authorities are the
copies of M=Murbacensis, a MS. discovered in 1515 by Beatus
Rhenanus and subsequently lost. To these belong (1) the ed.
pr. by Rhenanus, which was printed from his transcript and
contains in an appendix a collation with M by his pupil A. Burer;
(2) a copy of R.’s transcript made by B. Amerbach in 1516
(Bibl. Acad. Basileensis, A. N. 11. 8).

Ed. pr.: by Rhenanus, Basel, 1520. Index in Delphin ed.
(R. Riguez), 1675.

Pus.tius VERGILIUS Maro (70-19 B. C.).

1. Bucolica, i.e. 10 Eclogues. 2. Georgica, in 4 bks. 3. Aeneis,
in 12 bks. 4. Appendix Vergiliana, containing a number of
poems, some of which may be authentic.

The tradition of the text is exceedingly good and uniform. The
chief MSS. are: A=Schedae Vaticano-Berolinenses (2nd/3rd
cent.). These are fragments of a codex formerly at St. Denis;
three leaves are at Berlin (codex Augusteus) and four at Rome
(Vat. 3256): F=Sched. Vaticanae 3225, 3rd/4th cent. ; G=Sched.
Sangallenses 1394, palimpsest, 4th cent.; M=Mediceus 39. 29,
sth cent., with the swbscriptio ‘Turcius Rufius Apronianus
Asterius u. c. et inl ex comite domest. protect. ex com. priu.
largit. ex praef. urbi patricius et consul ordin. legi et distincxi
codicem fratris Macharii τι. c. non mei fiducia set eius cui si
(Ὁ cuius) et ad omnia sum deuotus arbitrio xi Kal. mai. Romae’.

P=Palatinus Vat. 1631, 4/5th cent.; R=Romanus Vat. 3867,
? 6th cent. ; V=Sched. Veronenses, palimpsest, 4th cent.

F MPR Vare closely related, A and Gare of less value. None
of these codices is complete. The text rests mainly on the
consensus of MPR. y=a minuscule codex Gudianus, fol. 70,
gth cent., is often of use to decide between conflicting readings.

The commentary of Servius (4th cent.) is of great value. It is
preserved in a long form, first published by P. Daniel in 1600,
and in a shorter and more authentic form, first published by
R. Stephanus in 1532.

Ed. pr.: Strassburg or Rome, cire. 1469.

Index: H. Merguet, Leipzig, 1909; M. N. Wetmore, New
Haven, rg1t.

(4) Appendix Vergiliana. The following poems are attributed

iw

ALL EEN

POR GEASSICAL TEXTS 283

to Vergil in the introduction to Servius’ commentary on the
Aeneid: Ciris, Aetna, Culex, Priapea, Catalepton or Epigram-
mata, Copa, Dirae. With these a few other poems are associated
in the surviving MSS., viz. Moretum, Est οἱ non, Vir bonus,
Maecenas, At an early date there were two collections, (1) con-
taining Culex, Dirac, Copa, Est et non, Vir bonus, Rosae, Aetna,
Moretum. This collection is represented, though in a fragmentary
form, in Vaticanus Bembinus 3252, 9th cent.: Fragmentum
Stabulense, i. e. Paris. 17177, roth cent., and in anumber of later
MSS. For the Aetna, besides the Frag. Stabulense, the chief
authorities are Cantabrigiensis KK. v. 34, roth cent., and a lost
MS. of Claudian, quoted by Lilius Gyraldus. (2) Another collec-
tion, viz. Cirts, Catalepton, is best preserved in Bruxellensis
10675-6, 12th cent., and a number of later MSS.

M. VERRIUS FLACCUS (Augustan age).

De uerborum significatu survives partly in the epitome by
Pompeius Festus and partly in an abridgement of Festus made by
Paulus Diaconus (end of 8th cent. A. D.).

The sole authority for Festus is the Farnesianus, 11th cent.,
which when discovered by Rhallus in 1477 consisted of nine
quaternions out of an original sixteen, and contained part of the
letter M to the letter V. Three of these nine have since been
lost (viz. 8, 10,and 16), and their contents are only known through
Renaissance copies.

The MSS. of Paulus fall into two classes: (1) best represented
by Monacensis 14734, 10/11th cent.; (2) by Guelferbytanus, roth
cent.

Ed. pr.: probably Milan, 1471.

VITRUVIUS POLLIO (under Augustus).

de Architectura, to bks.

H=Harleianus 2767, 9th cent.; S=Scletstatensis 1153 bis,
roth cent.; G=Gudianus 69, 11th cent. All come from the same
archetype.

An abridgement also exists made by M. Cetius Faventinus in
the 3rd cent.

Ed. pr.: by J. Sulpitius, Rome, circ. 1486.

Index: H. Nohl, Leipzig, 1876.

284 AUTHORITIES

XENOPHON (circ. 434-355 B. C.).

(1) Κύρου ἀνάβασις in 7 bks.

The best MS. is C= Parisinus 1640, A.D. 1320. Three other
MSS. are descended from it. Of the deteriores the best are D=
Bodleianus Canon. 39, 15th cent.,and V= Vindobonensis 95, 15th
cent. A papyrus fragment of the 3rd cent. a. p. (Grenfell and
Hunt, Oxyrhynch.Pap. iii, p. 120) agrees in the main with C, but
also presents readings peculiar to the dett. Athenaeus in his
quotations supports the text of the dett.

(2) Κύρου παιδεία in 8 bks.

The chief MSS. are (1) C=Parisinus 1640, 14th cent.; E=
Etonensis, 15th cent. (2) H=Escorialensis T. 3. 14, 12th cent. ;
A= Parisinus 1635, 14th cent.; G=Guelferbytanus 71. 19, 15th
cent.; V= Vat. 1335, 12th cent. (3) D=Bodleianus Canonicianus
39, 15th cent.; F (or D)=Erlangensis, 15th cent. Of these the
most important for the text are CH DF. Other aids to the
criticism of the text are the Constantine excerpts (10th cent.) and
papyrus fragments of the 2nd and 3rd cent. a.p. The papyrido
not support any one class.

(3) Ἑλληνικά in 7 bks., a continuation of Thuc. down to the
date of the Battle of Mantinea (362). (1) The better class) B=
Parisinus 1738, 14th cent. It is mutilated in bk. 7, where the
evidence of others of the same group, e.g. Vaticanus Palatinus
140, 14th cent. (paper) has to be taken. M=Ambrosian. A 4 inf,
A.D. 1344, is also of value. (2) Deteriores, e.g. C=Parisinus
2080, 15th cent. The papyri support the MS. tradition.

(4) ᾿Αγησίλαος. The MSS. are the same as in the Hiero.
The best is A (v. ¢zfra), from which some think all the other
MSS. are derived.

(5) Ἱέρων. MSS. in two groups: (1) A=Vaticanus 1335, 12th
cent. To the same class belong inferior MSS., such as N=
Marcianus 511, 12th cent. (2) A large group of MSS. of the
15th cent. All MSS. are derived from the same archetype,
which was faulty and not of great antiquity. Quotations in
Stobaeus and Athenaeus.

(6) ᾿Απομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους. 4 bks. A=Parisinus 1302,
13th cent. (contains only bks. 1-2). B= Parisinus 1740, 13th cent.
The inferior MSS. are of use, e.g. C= Par. 1642 (D in //ellenica).
All are derived from a common archetype different from the
text used by Stobaeus.

———— Ὡββαδοβ

7. oe, +

Poi CEASSICAL FEXTS 285

(7) Οἰκονομικόςφς. MSS. very numerous. The most important
are E, F= Laur. 80. 13, 13/14th cent., and 85. 9, 13th cent. M=
Lips. 96, 14th cent. V=Mare.511, 13th cent., andH= Reginensis
96, 12/13th cent. Their relations to one another are still imper-
fectly known. All from one archetype. Papyrus fragments of rst
cent. a. D. (Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 120).

(8) ᾿Απολογία Swxparovs. Same tradition as Hiero and Agesi-
laus. B=Vaticanus 1335, 12th cent. (corrections made in the
14th cent.). This or a similar MS. lies behind A=Vaticanus
1950, 14th cent., and Ha=Harleianus 5724, 15th cent. Quota-
tions in Stobaeus.

(9) Συμπόσιον. Two groups of equal value: (1) eg. A, B=
Parisini 1643, 1645, 15th cent.; H=Vindob. 37. (70), 15th cent.
(2)C=Par. 2955, 15th cent.; D=Laurent. 85. 9, 13th cent.
D is probably the parent of the Juntine ed.

(το) Minor writings: (a) Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία. [(b) ᾿Αθηναίων
πολιτεία, not by Xen. but composed circ. 424, perhaps by Critias. |
(ὦ) Πόροι ἢ περὶ προσόδων. (4) Ἱππαρχικός. (6) Περὶ ἱππικῆς. (f) Κυνη-
γετικός. All are contained in L=Laurentianus 53. 21, 14th cent.
For (a) there is also Vat. 1335, vide (8), and many late MSS.
For (6) Vat. 1950, vide (8), C=Vat. 1335. For (c) there is a
fragment in C= Par. 2955, also Vat. 1950 and Vat. 1335. For
(d) Paris. 1643 and several late MSS. (e) Paris. 1643 and Par.
2955. (7) Paris.'2737.-

Ed. pr.: Hellenica, Venice, 1503; Apologia, Reuchlin, 1520;
Opera, Euph. Boninus, Florence (Junta), 1516.

Index: Lexicon, F. W.Sturz, Leipzig, 1801-1804; G.A.Sauppe,
Leipzig, 1869 ; Anabasis, K. W. Kriger, Berlin, 1851 ; Memora-
biha, M. Kellogg, Cornell Studies, tgoo.

CHAPTER IX

THE NOMENCLATURE OF GREEK AND LATIN
MSS. WITH THE NAMES OF FORMER
POSSESSORS.

THE custom of writing critical editions of classical authors in
Latin has led to the general use of Latin names for manuscripts.
The following Index has been compiled in the hope of
rendering some of the obscurer names intelligible to those
whose studies are not directly concerned with Textual Criti-
cism,.

In most instances such names are geographical and are taken
from the place where a manuscript was first discovered, e.g.
the Lucensis of Martial retains the name of Lucca, the town
where it was found, although it is at present in Berlin; or from
the monastery, town, or library.to which the manuscript once
belonged or still belongs, e.g. Bobiensis, Montepessulanus,
Vindobonensis. Often the designation has been taken from
the name of some private owner, e.g. codices Puteanei,
Brunckiani. Occasionally fanciful names have been invented
to indicate the beauty, size, shape, or age of the book, or the
colour of the ink or parchment, e.g. codex Gigas, Oblongus,
Quadratus, Augusteus, Aureus, Argenteus, Purpureus, Ruber,
Nitidus, Ornatus, Tersus, Decurtatus.

The full description of a manuscript as given in the catalogue
of the authorities used in a critical edition should consist of
(a) the name or names by which the manuscript has been
known to scholars at any period; (ὁ) the press-mark which it
bears in the catalogue of the library to which it at present
belongs ; (c) the s¢g/um or abbreviated mark (usually a letter or
number) by which the editor denotes its readings in his appara-
(us criticus ; and (d) information as to its size and shape and the
style of its handwriting.

Thus the full description will often give more than one name

;

,
᾿
ΓΙ

NOMENCLATURE OF MANUSCRIPTS 287

if the manuscript has passed through several hands since it
became known to scholars, e.g. codex Bernensis olim Bongar-
sianus; cod. Franekeranus nunc Leeuwardensis 45, olim Gene-
vensis, pridem Cluniacensis.

Where a library has been catalogued on modern principles
the system employed will rarely cause any difficulty. The
separate collections are merged into one large catalogue, usually
termed a Summary Catalogue, in which every manuscript has
a particular number assigned to it. The Summary Catalogue
will not give a full description and history of the manuscript, but
merely sufficient information to enable the student to identify
it. For further information the older catalogues of the various
collections must still be consulted.

To avoid the use of excessively high numbers the manuscripts
catalogued are usually subdivided into groups according to the
language in which they are written, and sometimes according
to their size and the nature of their subject-matter; e.g. Pari-
sinus Fonds Grec 2712; Vindobonensis Hist(orici) 34, Jurid(ici)
33; Berolinensis Theolog. Lat. Fol. 481. At Paris the size
is denoted by the following letters:

P, petit format, i.e. up to 27 centimetres

M, moyen ,, ,, from 27 to 37 ,,
G, grand __,, 5, om 387 to 50..,,
Meats. »,, . 5. ποῖ Over 50: ,;

Accessions are usually denoted by press-marks such as: Sup-
pl(ementum), Append(ix), Nouv(elles) Acq(uisitions), Add(itional)
MSS.

In the smaller libraries, and in some of the older collections
which have been incorporated with larger libraries, the press-
marks are introduced by the Latin word for book-case, press,
or desk ; e.g. scrinium, pluteus, theca, armarium, foruli. Or by
the Latin title of the room or building in which the collection is
preserved ; e.g. Repositorium, Auctarium, Archium, Tabularium,
Thesaurarium. The rarest possessions of a library are some-
times called Cimelia, as at Ratisbon. The Cotton collection, which
now forms part of the British Museum, is still catalogued by the
names of the twelve Caesars, Cleopatra and Faustina, whose
busts stood over the original cases, e.g. Cottonianus Nero D. 4.

288 NOMENCLATURE

If a manuscript is of any importance for the constitution of
a text a sig/um or abbreviated sign must be used for denoting
its readings when given in the apparatus criticus. Usually
some letter of the Greek or Latin alphabet is employed, capital
letters being reserved for the important manuscripts and lower-
case letters for the less important. A small number placed above
the s¢g/um is generally used to denote the handwritings in which
additions or corrections have been made since the MS. was
first written. Thus P? denotes the reading of the second hand,
P* of the third.

Where a manuscript has been mutilated and its fragments
or parts are in different libraries the symbol + is often used to
indicate the connexion that exists between them, e.g. Vossianus
F. 70. 1 + Canonicianus Lat. Class. 279 are parts of the same
MS. of Seneca’s letters; Vossianus 79 + Paris. 1750 of
Servius; Bern. 347+357+330+ Paris. 7665, a MS. of excerpts
by Heiric of Auxerre.

The following are the chief works of reference :

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES.

Lexicon Geographicum, M.A. Baudrand, Paris, 1570.

Universus Terrarum Orots, Alphonsus Lasor a Varea fie. R.
Savonarola], Padua, 1713.

Orbis Latinus, 1. G. T. Graesse, Dresden, tgog.

Gallia Christiana, P. Piolin, 1870.

Italia Sacra, Ἐς Ughellus, 1717.

Lexicon Deutscher Stifter, Kléster und Ordenshduser, O. F. Grote,
Osterwieck, 1881.

Thuani Index, Genevae, 1634, an index to the latinized names in De
Thou’s history, will sometimes be found useful.

Allas zur Kirchengeschichte, Heussi und Mulert, Tiibingen, 1go5.

Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, ed. R. L. Poole, Oxford, 1902.

DIRECTORIES OF LIBRARIES.

Adressbuch der Bibl, der ost.-ung. Monarchie, J. Bohatta u.M.Holzmann,
Wien, Igoo.

Adressbuch der deutschen Bibl, P.Schwenke, Leipz. 1893.

Minerva, published annually by Triibner, contains the best and most
accessible information. The various volumes contain accounts of the
more important libraries.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 289

GENERAL CATALOGUES oF MSS.

B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum, 2 vols., Paris, 1739.

G. Haenel, Catalog? librorum mscr. qui in bibl. Galliae, Helvetiae, Belgii,
Britanniae seruantur, Lips. 1830.

V. Gardthausen, Sammlungen u. Cataloge griechischer Handschriften,
1903 (an off-print from Byzantinisches Archiv).

W. Weinberger, Catalogus Catalogorum, Wien, 1902 (a list of
libraries containing MSS. of ecclesiastical writers).

J. L. Heiberg, Ubersicht besonders der griech. Handschriftenkataloge.
Gott. Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1907, pp. 707-14.

SPECIAL CATALOGUES, ETC.

Mediaeval Libraries.
G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, Berlin, 1885.
Th. Gottlieb, Uber mittelalterliche Bibliotheken, Leipz. 1890.
Austria-Hungary.
A. Goldmann, Verzeichnis der ést.-ungar. Handschriftenkataloge in
Zentralblatt f. Bibl., 1888, v, p. τ 544.
E. Gollob, Verzenhnis der gr. Handschr. in Oest.-Ungarn, Wien, 1904.
This does not include Vienna.
Xenia Bernardina, vol. ii. Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der Cister-
cienstifte, Wien, 1891.
Belgium.

A. Sanderus, Bibliotheca Belgica, Lille, 1641.
H. Omont, on Greek MSS. in Belgium in Revue de Vinstruction

publique, vols. 27-8.

France.
L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. dela Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris,

1868-1881.
| U. Robert, Znventatre sommatre des mss. des bibl, de France, Paris,
1896.

Catalogue général des libl. publiques de France, 1893-1903. This
includes the libraries of Paris (with the exception of the Bibl.
Nat.) and of the departments.

H. Omont, Jnventatre sommaire des mss. grecs, 4 vols., Paris, 1886-
1898. Contains the Greek MSS. in French provincial libraries.

Great Britain.

E. Bernard, Catalogi libr. manuscr. Angliae et Hiberniae, Oxford,

1697.
Holland.

H. Omont, on Greek MSS. in Zentralblatt f. Bib/., 1886, vol. iv,

pp. 185, 562.

473

U

290 NOMENCLATURE

Italy.

F. Blume, Jer [talicum, 4 vols., Halle, 1824-1836, containing a good
bibliography of all preceding works. Bibliotheca libr. MSS. Italica,
Gottingen, 1834

G. Mazzatinti, Jnventari det manoscritti delle biblioteche @ Italia,
13 vols., Forli, 1891-1904. Catalogues for the most part of the
smaller Italian libraries which contain few classical works.

E. Martini, Catalogo dei manoscritti grect, Milan, 1893.

Biblioteche dello Stato, Rome, 1893 (unfinished), gives a list and
description of Italian public libraries.

Scandinavia.
U. Robert, Cabinet historique, 1880, vol. 26, p. 119.
C. Graux et A. Martin, Notices somm. des mss. grecs de Suéde. Archives
des Missions scientifiques, Third Series, 1889, xv, p. 293.
Spain.
R. Beer, Handschriftenschatze Spaniens, Vienna, 1894.

C. Graux et A. Martin, Notices somm. des mss. grecs d’Espagne et de
Portugal, Paris, 1892.

Switzerland.

H. Omont, Cai. des mss. grecs des bibl. de la Suisse. Zentralblatt f.
Bibl, vol. iii (1886), pp. 385-452; vol. viii (1891), p. 22.

NAMES OF SCHOLARS, COLLECTORS, ETC.

F. A. Eckstein, Nomenclator Philologorum, Leipz. 1871.
W. Pokel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon, Leipz. 1882. A useful
but uncritical work.
The less known scholars and collectors are often difficult to identify.
Some will be found in:
C. G, Jécher, Gelehrten-Lexicon, 4 vols., 1750;
Zedler, Universal-Lexicon, 1732-1751 ;
and in the various national Dictionaries of Biography.

ΟΕ MANUSCRIPTS 201

NOMENCLATURE.
A

Abbatiae de Florentia, monasterium. La Badia, Florence, It. MSS.
now in the Laurentian among those of the Conventi Soppressi.

Abrincensis, Abrincatuanus (Abrincae, Abrincatae), Avranches Fr.
(Taranne*: Omont*.)

Absarensis (Absarus), Ossero in Dalmatia. Monastery of 5. Nicholas.
Library dispersed.

Accidas, Manuel Atzidas of Rhodes presented MSS. to Sixtus V in
1585. In Vatican.

Acquaviva, MSS. of this family at Naples (Girolamini) and Vienna.

Acragantinus (Acragas, Agrigentum), Girgenti, Sicily. Bibl. Luc-
chesiana (A. Mancini, 1898). Mostly Oriental MSS.

Admontensis, Admont, Steiermark, Austr. Library of the College of
S. Patak. (Wichner, 1897.)

Aedilium Florentinae ecclesiae, s. v. Florentinus.

Aegianus, MSS. once belonging to Aegius Benedictus of Spoleto
(fl. εἴγε. 1550), cleric, antiquary, and lecturer on the classics at Paris.

Aegidius, Cardinal, of Viterbo, It.; d. 1532. MSS. at Hamburg.

Aemilianus, S. Millan de la Cogolla, Sp. Now in library of Real
Academia de la Historia, Madrid.

Aesiensis (Aesis), Jesi, It.

Affligeniensis, the monastery (Benedictine) at Afflighem or Affleghem,
near Malines, Belg. (Cat. of 1642 in Sanderus, Brb/. Belg.)

Agendicum s.v. Senonensis.

Agenensis, the Jesuit College at Agen, Fr. MSS. came into pos-
session of the Jesuits of Clermont. v. Claromontanus (1).

Agnesiana, library at Vercelli, It.

Agobardinus, MSS. of Agobard or Agobald, Abp. of Lyons; d, 840.
(e.g. Paris. lat. 1622.)

Agricola, Rudolphus (1442-1485), German philosopher and scholar.
s, v. Palatinus.

Agrippinas, Cologne, Germ. _ s. v. Coloniensis.

Alani codd., MSS. of Henry Allen of Dublin, editor of Cicero. Now
in the possession of his son Samuel Allen of Dublin.

Albae-Juliensis, s. v. Weissenburgensis.

Albertina, the University Library, Leipzig, Germ.

Albiensis, Albigensis, Albi, Fr. (Libri: Portal*.)

Albornoziana, s.v. Bononiensis.

* Catalogues marked with an asterisk will be found in the Catalogue général
des bibl. publiques de France, 1849-1885 and 1893-1903.
U2

292 NOMENCLATURE

Alcobacensis, Bibl. Alcobatiae, i.e. of the Benedictine monastery of
Alcobaca. Now at Lisbon, Portugal. (Catalogue, Lisbon, 1775.)
Alderspacensis, Aldersbach, near Passau, Germ. MSS. at Munich.
Aleander, Hieronymus (1480-1542), Cardinal, librarian to Leo X.

MSS. in Vatican.

Alexandrinus, (1) Bibl. Alexandrina, a portion of the Vatican Library
founded by Alexander VIII in 1690 out of the collections of Queen
Christina and of Pius II (s.v. Vaticanus). (2) University Library
(Bibl. Alessandrina) in Rome founded by Alexander VII, 1667.
(H. Narducci, 1877.) (3) The codex Alexandrinus of the Greek
Bible given to Charles I in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of
Constantinople, came from Alexandria. It is now in the British
Museum.

Allatius, Leo (1584-1667), Greek scholar and theologian. MSS. in
Vatican and Vallicelliana.

Almelovee(n)ianus, MSS, collected by Theodore Jannson van Alme-
loveen, 1657-1712, Professor of Classics and of Medicine at Harder-
wyk, Holland.

Alnensis, Aulne, Belg. (Sanderus, 57b/. Belgica, ii. 234, gives a cata-
logue for 1632.)

Altaempsianus, the MSS. of the Dukes of Altaemps and Galesi, an
Italian family descended from the Counts of Hohen-Ems. Their
collection, which included the MSS. of Albertus Pius (d. 1529}
and Johannes Angelus Altaemps (4. 1627), was purchased by
Cardinal Ottoboni and is now part of the Ottoboniani (q. v.).

Altaha superior, Ober-Altaich, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Altaha inferior, Nieder-Altaich, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Alt(d)orfinus, MSS. at University of Altdorf, Germ. Now at Erlangen.

Altenburgensis, AJtenburg, Germ. At Diisseldorf.

Alteriana, libr. of Altieri family at Rome. Blume, B7b/., p. 159.

Althorp, library founded by Charles Spencer, third Earl of Sunderland
(1674-1722), and increased by George John Spencer, second Earl
Spencer (1758-1834). Sold in 1892 to form nucleus of Rylands
Library. s.v. Mancuniensis.

Altissiodurensis, also Aut-, Ant-, Auxerre, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Altmonasteriensis, Altmiinster, Germ. At Munich.

Altovadensis (Vadum altum), Hohenfurth, Bohemia.

Amandinus, s. v. S. Amand.

Ambergensis, Amberg, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Ambianensis (Ambianum), Amiens, Fr. The library contains Cor-
beienses, Fontanellenses, and MSS. of S. Petri Selincuriensis and
S. Acheul. (E.Coyecque; Michel*.)

Ambrasianus, Castle Ambras in Tyrol, Austria. Library transferred
to Vienna in 1665. (Th. Gottlieb, Ambraser Hss., 1900.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 293

Ambrosianus, library founded at Milan, It., in 1609 by Cardinal
Federigo Borromeo (1564-1631). It includes the collections of
Pinelli and Merula. (Gk. MSS., Martini e Bassi, 1905.)

Amerbachianus, Boniface Amerbach of Basel, Switz. (1495-1562),
Professor of Law; friend of Erasmus.

Amiatinus, Monastery San Salvatore di Monte Amiata, near Siena,
It., suppressed in 1786. MSS. transferred to monastery of Castello
Nuovo, Florence, and from thence to the Laurentian.

Amplonianus, s.v. Erfurtensis.

Amstelodamensis (Amstelodamum), Amsterdam, Holland. Library
of the University or Athenaeum illustre. MSS. of Foucault and
Granvella. (H.C. Rogge, 1883; Omont.)

Andegavensis (Andegavum), Angers, Fr. Library of the Abbaye de
S. Aubin, now dispersed. (Molinier*.)

Andreensis, the Skiti or monastery of S. Andrew on Mt. Athos.

Andros, Greece, Movi τῆς ‘Ayias. (Sp. Lambros.)

Angelica, library at Rome founded by an Augustinian monk, Angelo
Rocca (1545-1620), in 1605. Once the library of the Coenobium
5. Augustinide urbe. Now in Piazza 5. Agostino. Contains MSS.
of Passionei (s.v.) and part of Holstenius’ library. (H. Narducci,
1893; F. de’ Cavalieri and J. Muccio in Studi ital. di filologia
iv, p. 7; cf. T. W. Allen, Class. Rev. 1889, p. 345.)

Angelomontanus, Engelberg, Switz. MSS. dispersed. (B. Gottwald,
1891.)

Annabergensis, Annaberg, Germ. The Franciscan house here was
secularized in 1558. Some of its MSS. are in the present School
Library.

Antissiodorensis, s.v. Alt-.

Antoniana, (1) library at Padua, It. (Josa, 1886.) (2) A library formerly
at Venice whose MSS. are quoted by the older scholars (e.g. Cic:
Epp. ad Att.).

Antwerpiensis (Antwerpia, Handoverpia), Antwerp, Belg. (1) Library
of the Musée Plantin, purchased from the Plantin firm of printers
(1576-1876) in 1876. (H. Stein, 1886; Omont.) (2) Municipal
Library (Omont).

Apponyi, the library of Count Louis App., which contained a few
classical MSS., was sold in London (Sotheby) in 1892.

Aquensis (Aquae Sextiae), Aix, Fr. MSS. from the Grand Sémi-
naire are now at Marseilles.

Aquiscinctum, Anchin, Fr. MSS. at Douai.

Aquisgranensis (Aquisgranum), Aachen, Germ.

Arcerianus, Joh. Arcerius Theodoretus, Professor of Greek at
Franeker, editor of Iamblichus (1538-1604). His MS. of the
Agrimensores is now at Wolfenbiittel.

294 NOMENCLATURE

Arelatensis (Arelas, Arelate), Arles, Fr. MSS. now at Marseilles. ἢ

Argentoratensis, Argentinensis (Argentoratum, Argentina), Strass-
burg, Germ. MSS. partly destroyed in 1870, v. M. Vachon, Paris,
1882.

Armamentarii Parisiensis, Bibl. de l’Arsenal. 5.ν. Parisiensis.

Arosiensis (Arosia\, Vasteras, Sweden. Hdégre allmanna laroverks-
biblioteket. (P. Olai, 1640; W. Molér, 1877.)

Aroviensis (Arovia, Araugia), Aarau, Switz.

Arsenius, s. v. Suchano.

Arsinoiticus, papyri discovered at Arsinoe in Egypt.

Arundelianus, MSS. of Thomas Howard, Ear] of Arundel (1586-1646),
presented to the Royal Society in 1667 by Henry Howard, afterwards
sixth Duke of Norfolk (1628-1684). Transferred to the British
Museum in 1831. The collection contains the MSS. of Willibald
Pirkheimer. (Cat. Forshall, 1840.)

Ascalingium, Hildesheim, Germ.

Ashburnhamensis, s.v. Barrois, Libri.

Ashmoleanus, MSS. of Elias Ashmole (1617-1692), antiquary; trans-
ferred in 1858 to the Bodleian from the Museum which he founded
in 1677. (W. H. Black, 1845-1867.)

Askevianus, Anthony Askew (1722-1774), physician, but better
known as aclassical scholar. His library, which included MSS. of
Mead and Taylor, was dispersed in 1785. Cf. Burneianus, Hauniensis,
Severnianus. (Catalogue of sale, 1785.)

Asola, Giov. Francesco d’ (Jo. Franciscus Asulanus), a collector who
presented many MSS. to Francis I in 1542 for the library at Fon-
tainebleau. He was the father-in-law of Aldus Manutius.

Atheniensis, Εθνικὴ βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Ελλάδος, Athens, Greece. (Sakkelion,
1892.)

Athous, the libraries at Mt. Athos, Turkey. (Sp. Lambros, 1895-
1900.) The name is also applied to MSS. brought from Mt. Athos,
e.g. for Séguier (at Paris) and by Minas, Simonides, and others.

Atrebatensis (Atrebatae), S. Vaast or Vedast of Arras, Fr. (J.
Quicherat*.)

Audomarensis, Audomaripolitanus (Audomaropolis), S. Omer, Fr.
MSS. partly at Boulogne. (H. Michelant* ; Framezelle*.)

Augiensis, (1) Augia Major or Dives, Reichenau near Constance,
Switz., s.v. Reichenaviensis. . (2) Augia Alba, Weissenau, Germ.
(3) Augia Minor, Minderau, Germ.

Augustanus, (1) Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), Germ. There are
a few classical MSS. in the Kreis- und Stadtbibl. Most MSS. from
the town and church libraries were transferred to Munich in 1806.
MSS. from the surrounding monasteries have since been added
(cf. Eichstatt, including Rebdorfenses). (ἃ, C. Mezger, 1842.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 205

(2) Bibliotheca Augustea, Wolfenbiittel, founded by Herzog
August in 1644. (O. von Heinemann, 1884-1890.) (3) Occasionally
used for Augusta Trevirorum, 1. 6. Tréves.

Augusteus, (1) the Berlin and Vatican palimpsest of Vergil (Schedae
Berolinenses or Puteaneae). It was given this title by G. H. Pertz,
who thought that it belonged to the age of Augustus. (2) Used for
Augustanus (supra).

Augustinus, the library of Antonius Augustinus (Agustin) (1516-1586),
Abp. of Tarragona, Spain. Nowinthe Escurial. (M. Baillus, 1586).

Augustobonensis (Augustobona Trecassium), Troyes, Fr. Cf. Tre-
censis.

Augustodunensis (Augustodunum), Bibliotheque du grand sémi-
naire, Autun, Fr. (Libri*.)

Aureatensis (Aureatum), Eichstatt, Germ. Kgl. Bibl. in fiirstbischéfl.
Sommer-Residenz. (Bethmann.) Cf.s.v. Augustanus.

Aurea Vallis, Orval, Cistercian monastery in Luxembourg. At Paris.

Aurelianensis (Aurelianum), Orléans, Fr. MSS. of G. Prousteau
(5. v. Proustelliana), who inherited the collection made by H. Vale-
sius. (Septier, 1820; Cuissard *.)

Ausonensis, Vich (Ausa nova, also called Vicus), Sp.

Autesiodorensis, s. v. Altiss-.

Autricensis, s. v. Carnutensis.

Auximensis (Auximum), Osimo, It. Bibl. del Collegio. (Mazzatinti.)

Avaricensis (Avaricum), Bourges, Fr. Cf. Bituricus. (de Girardot;
H. Omont*.)

Avellanensis, Fonte Avellana, Umbria, It.

Avennionensis (Avenio), Avignon, Fr. (1) Relics of the Papal Library
survive among the Fuxenses in Bibl. Nat. Paris and in the Borghese
collection inthe Vatican. (2) Bibliotheque d’Avignon, Musée Calvet
(L H. Labande, 189 2.)

Aviculae codd., e.g. the Nostradamensis of Quintilian, formerly
in the possession of Antoine Loisel (1536-1617), a French juris-
consult, pupil of Ramus and friend of Pithou. Many of them were
inherited by his grandson Claude Joly (d. 1700), precentor and canon
of Notre-Dame, who left them to the library of Notre-Dame,
which since 1756 has become part of the Paris Library (s. v. Nostra-
damensis).

B

Babenbergensis, Bamberg, Germ. s.v. Bamb-.

Badia, s.v. Abbatiae de Florentia.

Baiocensis, Bayeux, Fr.

Balliolensis, Balliol College, Oxford. (H.O. Coxe.)
Balmensis, Baume-les-Messieurs, Fr.

296 NOMENCLATURE

Baluzianus, Etienne Baluze (1630-1718), French historian; librarian to
Colbert, q.v. His MSS. were purchased for the Royal Library, Paris,
in 1719.

Bambergensis (Bamberga, Babenberga), Bamberg, Germ. Kgl.
Bibliothek. (H. J. Jaeck, 1831-1835 ; F. Leitschuh, 1887.) Cf. Helle-
riana. Some Bamberg MSS. at Munich. Early history in L. Traube,
Abhandl. der historischen Klasse der Kgl. Bayer. Akad. xxiv, Part i,
1906.

Bankesianus, William John Bankes (d. 1855), traveller and M.P.
He acquired the papyrus of Homer which bears his name in the
island of Elephantine, Egypt, in 1821. It was purchased for the
British Museum in 1879.

Barbarus, Hermolaus (1454-1494), Italian humanist. MSS. in Vatican
(Orsini), Bodleian (Canonici).

Barberin(ian)us, Cardinal Francesco Barberini (1597-1679), nephew of
Urban VIII, founder of the Barberini Library, Rome, which contained
many MSS. from Grottaferrata (Cryptoferratenses) and also the
collection of his librarian Lucas Holstenius (Holste) (1596-1661).
In the Vatican since 1902. (Gk. MSS.: S. de Ricci, Rev. des
Bibliothéques, 1907 ; Perleoni, Studi /t., 1907.)

Barc(h)inonensis (Barcino), Barcelona, Sp. (E. Volger, Serapeum
Vili, p. 273-)

Barlow, MSS. of Thomas Barlow, librarian of Bodleian Library, Oxford,
1652-1660, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln. Now in Bodleian.

Baroccianus, MSS. of Giacomo Barocci of Venice (v. J. P. Tomasini,
Bibl. Venetae, p. 64; Blume, //er Jtal., i. 233), given to the Bodleian by
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, in 1629. (H. O. Coxe, 1853.)
Cf. s.v. Cromwellianus and Roe.

Barrois, Joseph (1785-1855), bookseller and bibliographer. His
collection of MSS. (most of which were stolen from public libraries
at Paris and elsewhere) was sold by him to Lord Ashburnham
in 1849.

Basilianus, (1) s.v. 5. Basilii. (2) MSS. from Basilian monasteries at
Grottaferrata, Messina, Rome (Vatican), Venice.

Basilicanus, (1) The Chapter Library at 5. Peter's, Rome (Tabularium
Capituli Basilicae Vaticanae). (2) Used by some of the earlier
scholars to describe a MS. belonging to any cathedral library, e.g.
the Hittorpianus of Cicero.

Basileensis (Basilea), Basel, Switz. (Haenel, pp. 513-660; Steuber,
Serapeum, 1856, Xvii; p. 129.) Library contains the MSS. of John of
Ragusa (d. 1443), Amerbach, Froben, and Faesch.

Batthyanianus, library founded by Ignatius, Count Batthyany
(1741-1798) at Siebenbiirgen, Transylvania. Now at Karlsburg.
(A. Beke, 1871.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 297

Bavaricus, Munich, Bavaria. s.v. Monacenses.

Beccensis, Bec, Fr. MSS. at Evreux, Rouen, and in the Vatican.

Bellaevallensis, Belval, Fr. MSS. at Charleville.

Bellofontanensis, s. v. Fonteblandensis.

Bellopratensis, Beaupré, Belg. MSS. at Brussels.

Bellunensis (Bellunum), Belluno, It. (Bibl. Lolliniana). (Mazzatinti.)

Belvacensis, Bellovacensis (Bellovacum), S. Pierre de Beauvais, Fr.
MSS. from Luxeuil once here are in Le Caron Library (4. v.).

Bembinus, Bernardo Bembo (1433-1519), and his son the humanist
Cardinal Pietro Bembo (1470-1547). MSS. in the Vatican (Ursiniani,
Urbinates) ; few at Modena (Mutinensis) and at Venice.

Benedictoburanus, Benedictbeuern, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Benzelius, Ericus, Abp. of Upsala (d. 1709). MSS. at Linképing and
Upsala.

Beratinus, Berat, Macedonia.

Bernard Edward (1638-1697), Fellow of S. John’s College, Oxford,
and Savilian Professor of Astronomy. His MSS. (many of which
had been purchased at the sale of Nicholas Heinsius’ library in 1682)
were purchased by the Bodleian in 1698. (Madan, Swmary Cat.,
ie pst.)

Bernegger, Matthias (1582-1640), Austrian scholar. MSS. at Breslau.

Bernensis (Berna), Berne, Switz. Stadtbibliothek contains the MSS.
of Bongars (presented in 1631), among which are included those of
P. Daniel. (J. R. Sinner, 1760-1772; H. Hagen, 1874-1875.)

Berolinensis (Berolinum), Berlin,Germ. (1) Kgl. Bibl., founded 1661.
(Greek, Manuscripta Graeca, C. de Boor, 1897; Codd. Phillippici,
W. Studemund and L. Cohn, 1890. Latin, V. Rose has catalogued
the Phillipps collection and the old library of the elector.) Other Lat.
MSS. in Diez, Savigny, and Hamilton collections. (2) Universitats-
bibl., founded 1829. All MSS. have been transferred to the
Kgl. Bibl.

Berry, s. v. Bituricus.

Bertinianus, Benedictine monastery at S. Bertin, near 5. Omer, Fr.
At S. Omer and Boulogne.

Bertoliana, library at Vicenza, It., founded in 1708 by will of G. M.
Bertoli,a lawyer (1631-1707). (Mazzatinti; anaccountby D. Bortolant
Vicenza, 1893.)

Bessarion, Johannes or Basilius (1395-1472), created cardinal in 14309,
bequeathed his library to Venice, where it forms part of the
Marciana. MSS. formerly in his possession are also at Grottaferrata
and Munich, He obtained many of his MSS. from the monastery of
S. Nicholas, at Casole near Otranto. (s.v. Hydruntinus.) (Omont,
Revue des Bibliothéques, 1894.)

Besuensis, Beze, Cote-d’Or, Burgundy, Fr.

298 NOMENCLATURE

Betouwianus, MSS. of I. van Betouw (1732-1820), Dutch advocate, —
left to the library at Leyden in 1821.

Beverina, s. v. Hildeshemensis.

Beza, Théodore de Béze (1519-1605), of Geneva, theologian, friend of
Calvin.

Bigaugiensis, s. v. Pigaviensis.

Bigotianus, Jean Bigot of Rouen and his son Emeric (1626-1689).
Their collection was sold in 1706 to the Royal Library, Paris.
(Delisle, Cabinet, i, p. 322. Cat. by Delisle, 1877.)

Bituricus (Bituricae), (1) Bourges, Fr. (Omont*.) MSS. of S.Sulpice,
S. Cyran, Chezal-Benoit (Casalinus). (2) MSS. belonging to the
collection of Jean de Berry (1340-1416), brother of Charles V of
France. Dispersed at his death. MSS. in Bourges, Paris, Brussels,
London. (L. Delisle, Recherches sur la librairie de Ch. V, 1907.)

Blandinius, s. v. Blankenbergensis.

Blankenbergensis, Blankenberg (Mons Blandinius), a Benedictine ©
monastery near Ghent, Holland.

Blankenburgensis, library at Schloss Blankenburg, Brunswick, trans-
ferred to Wolfenbiittel in 1753.

Blavibornensis, Blaubeuren, Germ.

Blesensis, Blois, Fr. The library of the kings of France at Blois
was begun by Charles VIII, who appropriated after his campaign
in 1495 the collections made by the Aragonese kings of Naples
(esp. Ferdinand I). The library at Blois was transferred to Fon-
tainebleau by Francis I and later to Paris.

Bliaudifontanus, s. v. Fonteblandensis.

Bobiensis (Bobium, Ebobium). Monastery οἱ S. Columban at
Bobbio, It. Its MSS., mostly palimpsests, were neglected by the
humanists except Parrhasius (1499), who discovered some which he
presented to the Neapolitan monastery of S. Giovanni a Carbonara.
These are now in the Bibl. Nazionale at Naples. Others are now in
the Vatican (given by Paul V) and at Milan (procured by F. Borromeo
in 1609}, Turin, and Wolfenbiittel. (A. Peyron, 1824.)

Bochart, Samuel (1599-1667), minister of reformed church at Caen,
MSS. at Caen (Cadomensis).

Bodleianus, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, founded by Sir Thomas
Bodley in 1598. The chiefcollections containing classical MSS. are :
Ashmole, Barlow, Barocci, Bernard, Canonici, Clarke, Cromwell, —
Digby, D'Orville, Douce, Laud, Meerman, Rawlinson, Roe,
Saibante, Selden (all described in this index, s.v.).

Boernerianus, (1) Kaspar Boerner, librarian at Leipzig crc. 1540.
Cf. Cat. Codd. MSS. Bibl. Paulinae, L. J. Feller, 1686, pp. 1-59. (2)
Christian Friedrich Boerner (1683-1753), Professor of Theology at
Leipzig and librarian. MSS. at Leipzig (University Library).

OF MANUSCRIPTS 299

Boherianus, Jean Bouhier (d. 1671) and his grandson of the same
name (ἃ. 1746). Their collection of MSS. was purchased in 1781
by the abbey of Clairvaux. It passed to Troyes during the
Revolution, In 1804 it was transferred partly to the National
Library at Parisand partly to the library at Montpellier. (L. Delisle,
Cabinet, ii, p. 266.)

Boistallerianus, Jean Hurault, Seigneur de Boistaillé (d. 1572), am-
bassador at Constantinople and collector of MSS. His library was
purchased for the Bibliotheque Royale, Paris, in 1622. A few of his
MSS. are at Leyden and in Arsenal Library, Paris. (L. Delisle,
Cabinet, i, p. 213.)

Bonellus, F. Michaele Bonelli, Cardinal of Alexandria, nephew of
Pius V. MSS. in Casanatense, Rome.

Bongarsianus, Jacques Bongars (circ. 1554-1613), jurist and critic,
maitre d’hétel to Henry IV of France. His collection of over 500
MSS. was derived from Strassburg, S. Benoit-sur-Loire (Fleury),
S. Mesmin at Micy (Miciacensis) near Orléans, and from the collec-
tions of Cujacius and P. Daniel (s.v. Danielinus). He left it to
Jacques Gravisset (b. 1598), who presented it to the University
Library at Berne (1631). There are a few isolated codices elsewhere,
e.g. Amsterdam. Cf. Bernensis.

Bonifatianus, 5. v. Fuldensis.

Bonnensis, Bonn, Germ. Kgl. Universitats-Bibl. (A. Klette and
J. Stander, 1858-1878.)

Bononiensis (Bononia), (1) Boulogne, Fr.; includes the MSS. of
S. Vaast of Arras and of S. Bertin of S. Omer. (Michelant*.) (2)
University Library at Bologna, It. (Gk. MSS., Olivieri and Festa,
1895; Puntoni, 1896.) (3) Biblioteca Comunale in the Archigin-
nasio, Bologna, It. (4) Bibl. Collegii Hispanici (Collegio di Spagna),
Bologna, founded by Cardinal Albornoz (d. 1367). (Blume, 570/.,
De SF.)

Borbetomagensis (Borbetomagus, Gormetia), Worms, Germ. Also
Vormaciensis.

Borbonicus, s. v. Neapolitanus.

Bordesholm, Germ. The MSS. from the monastery were trans-
ferred to Gottorp and are now at Copenhagen. A few were
acquired by Marquard Gude and are now at Wolfenbiittel.

Borghesianus, Biblioteca Borghese, incorporated with the Vatican
since 1891. The collection was begun by Cardinal Scipio Borghese,
nephew of Pope Paul V.

Borgianus, (1) Museo Borgiano, Rome. MSS. now in the Vatican.
(2) The Charta Borgiana is a papyrus found in Egypt in 1778. It
was purchased by Cardinal Stefano Borgia and is now in the
Museo Nazionale at Naples.

300 NOMENCLATURE

Borromeo, Frid. (1564-1631), cardinal. MSS. at Milan (Ambros.).

Bosianus, s. v. Crusellinus.

Bosius, J. A. (1626-1674), Professor of History at Jena. MSS. at Jena.

Bouhier, s. v. Boherianus.

Bourdelot, name assumed by P. Michon (1610-1685), a French physi-
cian in the service of Queen Christina of Sweden. MSS. in Vatican
(Reginenses); also at Leyden and Paris. (Omont, Revue des Bibl,
1891, i. 81-103.)

Brahe, library of Count Brahe now deposited in the Riks-arkiv,
Stockholm, Sweden.

Braidense, s. v. Brerensis.

Brancacciana, library of S. Angelo at Naples founded by bequest of
Cardinal Francesco Maria Brancaccio in 1675. (Catalogus bibl.
S. Angeli ad Nilum, 1750.)

Bregensis, S. Nicholas, Brieg, Switz.

Bremensis (Brema), Bremen, Germ. Cf. Goldastianus. (H. Omont,
Zentralblatt f. Bibl., 1890, vol. vii, p. 359; Rump, 1843.)

Brerensis, Brera (or Braidense) Library, Milan, It. (Gk. MSS.,
E. Martini, 1893.)

Breslaviensis (Vratislavia), Breslau, Germ. 5.ν. Vratislaviensis.

Britannus, Britannicus, s. v. Londiniensis.

Brixianus (Brixia), Brescia, It. (1) Bibl. Queriniana founded by
Cardinal Querini (d. 1755) in 1747. (F. Garbelli, 1882; E. Martini,
1896; Lat.codd. in A. Beltrami, Studi /taliant, 1906.) (2) Cathedral
Library.

Broukhusianus, Johan van Brouckhuysen or Broekhuizen (1619-1707)
of Amsterdam, naval officer and poet. Owned MSS. of Tibullus
and Propertius.

Bruehliana, library of Heinrich Graf von Brihl (1700-1763), minister of
August III of Saxony. Incorporated with the Kurfirstl. Bibl.,
Dresden, since 1768.

Brugensis (Brugae), Bruges, Belg. (Laude, 1859.)

Brunck, Richard Francois Philippe (1729-1803) of Strassburg, editor
of Aristophanes and other Greek authors. Many of the MSS, owned
by him are now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris (Fonds du supplément
grec) and in Brit. Mus.

Brunsvicensis (Brunsvicum, Brunsviga), Brunswick, Germ. (Nent-
wig, 1893.) Many MSS. from churches and monasteries in
Brunswick are now at Wolfenbittel.

Bruxellensis (Bruxellae), Brussels, Belg. Bibl. Royale, which
contains the Bibl. de Bourgogne (J. Marchal, 1840), founded in the
15th cent. by Philippe le Bon. (Gk. MSS., Omont; Lat. MSS.,
P. Thomas, 1896.) Contains MSS. of D’Asola, Doverinus, Fran-
quen, Gerard, Lang, Livineius, Schott.

!

ft

OF MANUSCRIPTS 301

Bucharest, Roumania. Library of the Roumanian Academy. (Gk.
MSS., C. Litzica, 1900-19009. )

Budaeus, the family of Budé. (1) Jean Budé (d. 1502), whose collection
was dispersed in the 16th cent. (2) His son Guillaume Budé
(1467-1540), scholar and librarian to Francis 1. B.’s library (which
contained few MSS.) was sold on his death to Président Francois
de S. André (d. 1571) and has passed through the Jesuits of Clermont,
H. de Mesmes, and Colbert to the Bibl. Nat., Paris. A few MSS.
are at Leyden.

Budensis, Budapesti(n)ensis, Buda-Pest, Hungary. University
Library (Cat.codd. MSS., Budapest, 1889-1894). Contains MSS. of
Matthias Corvinus (s.v.) restored by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. (A.v.
Térék, 1877.) Some Budenses are at Vienna.

Bunaviensis, Heinrich Graf von Biinau (1697-1762), Saxon minister
and historian. His library, of which Winckelmann was at one
time librarian, was purchased in 1764 for the Kurfiirst!. Bibl.,
Dresden. (M. Franke, 1750.)

Burdigalensis (Burdigala), Bordeaux, Fr. (C. Couderc.)

Burensis, s.v. Benedictoburanus.

Burghesianus, s.v. Borgh-.

Burgos, Francisco de Mendoza of Bobadilla (1508-1566), Cardinal of
Burgos, Sp. MSS. in Escurial.

Burmannus, (1) Pieter Burman, Dutch scholar, Professor at Leyden
(1668-1741). His MSS. at Leyden, Holland, since 1777. A few
in the Hunterian collection, Glasgow. (2) His nephew, Pieter
Burman (1714-1778), Professor at Amsterdam.

Burneianus, MSS. of Dr. Charles Burney (1726-1814), friend of
Johnson and father of Frances Burney. Purchased for the Brit.
Mus. in 1818. (Forshall, 1834.)

Busbequius, Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq (1522-1592), ambassador of
the Emperor Ferdinand I in Turkey (1555-1562). He made the first
copy of the Monumentum Ancyranum. His Gk. MSS. are now in
the Imperial Library, Vienna. (Biography by Forster and Daniel,
London, 1881; Viertel, Busbecks Evxlelnisse in der Tiirket, tgo2;
J. Bick in Wiener Studien, 1912, p. 143.)

Buslidianus, MSS. left to the Collegium Trilingue founded at
Louvain, Belg., by bequest of Hieronymus Buslidius or Busleiden
(1470-1517), ambassador of Maximilian and a friend of More and
Erasmus. Now in the University Library, Louvain.

Butlerianus, MSS. belonging to Samuel Butler (1774-1839), Bp. of
Lichfield, Eng., editor of Aeschylus.

302 NOMENCLATURE

ec

Cabil(l)onensis (Cabillonum), Chalon-sur-Sadne, Fr. (Bougenot*.).

Cadomensis (Cadomum), Caen, Fr. (Lavalley *.)

Caesaraugustanus (Caesarea Augusta), Zaragossa, Sp. Pilar
Library.

Caesareus, a general term for an imperial library (e.g. Vienna,
S. Petersburg).

Caesenas, Cesena, It. s.v. Malatestianus.

Caiogonvilensis, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Cairensis, library of the Gk. Patriarchate, Cairo, Egypt. (O.
Schneider, Bettrdge, 1874, pp. 41-7.)

Calaber, Calabria, It. In ancient times the name Calabria belonged
to the SE. peninsula of Italy and included among its most impor-
tant towns Tarentum and Hydruntum. In the 7th cent. A.p., in the
reign of the Emperor Constans, the name seems to have been
applied to a large administrative district which included the SW.
peninsula (the ancient Bruttium). When the Empire lost its hold
on the eastern portion of this district the name Calabria came to be
used for the SW. peninsula, which still retains it. The title
Calaber is therefore properly applied to MSS. written, discovered,
or owned in this western district, which includes such towns as
Reggio, Cosenza, Rossano; but it is sometimes loosely applied to
MSS. which come from the eastern province, especially by scholars
of the Renaissance.

Calabricus, the MSS. of the Duke of Calabria, afterwards Ferdinand 1
of Aragon (1424-1494), which he left to the monastery of San
Miguel de los Reyes near Valencia, Sp. Now in the University
Library at Valencia. (Mazzatinti, La Biblioteca det Re d’Aragona,
1897, p. CXXVii, note 4.)

Calariensis (Calaris, Caralis), Cagliari, Sardinia, It.

Calmontensis (Calmontium), Chaumont, Fr. (Gautier *.)

Camaldulensis (Campus Malduli), monastery in province of Arezzo,
It. MSS. at Florence.

Camberiacensis (Camberiacum, Chamarium), Chambéry, Fr. (Per-
péchon *.)

Camberinensis, Cambron, Belg.

Cameracensis, Camberacensis, Cambrai, Fr. (Molinier *.)

Camerarius, Joachim Kammermeister of Bamberg, Germ. (1500-1574),
Professor of Greek at Tiibingen and Leipzig. Some MSS. at
Munich.

Camerinensis (Camerinum), Camerino, It. Bibl. Valentiniana,
founded 1802. (Mazzatinti, /nventart, 1887.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 303

Campianus, the Abbé Francois de Camps (d. 1723), an authority
on law and numismatics, abbot of a Cistercian monastery at
Signy, Fr. (Delisle, Cadbznet, i. 321.)

Campililiensis (Campililium), Lilienfeld, Austr. (Xenia Bernardina
11-111.

Candidus, 5. v. Decembrius.

Canonicianus, MSS. of Matteo Luigi Canonici, a Venetian Jesuit
(1727-1805), acquired for the Bodleian in 1817. (H. O. Coxe, 1854 ;
Madan, Summary Cat., iv. 313.) Some MSS. from the C. collection
are at Keel Hall, Staffordshire.

Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, Eng. (1) University Library, con-
taining MSS. of Bp. More (s.v.). (2) College libraries, M. R.
James (Caius, Sidney Sussex, Jesus, King’s, Trinity, Peterhouse) ;
M. Cowie (S. John’s); J. T. Smith (Caius); Nasmith (MSS. of
Matthew Parker at Corpus Christi, 1777), embodied in James’
catalogue.

Cantuariensis (Cantuaria), Canterbury, Eng. MSS. mostly at
Lambeth Palace, London, and Corpus, Camb. (M. R. James, 1903.)

Capellari, s. v. 5. Michaelis.

Capilupianus, library of Capilupi family at Mantua, It. (Cf.G. Kupke,
Quellen u. Forschungen, τοῦ, ili. 129, and Blume, J/ter Jfal., i.
162.)

Capitolo Metropolitano, Milan, It. (Gk. MSS., E. Martini, 1893.)

Capo d’Istria, Austria. Franciscan convent of 5. Anna (E. Gollob,
Verzeichnis, 1903.)

Capponianus, the Biblioteca Capponiana bequeathed to the Vatican
by the Marchese Alessandro Gregorio Capponi in 1745. Contains
a few Latin MSS.

Capranicensis, the Collegio Capranica, Rome, founded by Dominicus
Capranica (d. 1456), jurist and bibliophile. MSS. in Vatican.

Carbonensis, MSS. from the Basilian monastery of S. Elia de
Carbone, S. It. Now in Vatican and at Grottaferrata.

Carcassonensis (Carcaso), Carcassonne, Fr. (Gadier *.)

Carinthianus, s.v. S. Pauli.

Carlopolitanus (Carlopolis), Charleville, Fr. (Quicherat *, Barba-
deaux *.)

Carnutensis (Carnutum, Autricum), Chartres, Fr. (Omont and
others *.)

Carolina, library of the Missione Urbana di San Carlo at Genoa, It.
(Banchero, 1846; Gk. MSS., A. Ehrhard, Zevtralbl. f. Bibl. 1893.
Cf. T. W. Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 255.)

Carolinus, the codex of Isidore at Wolfenbiittel is so called after
Karl, Duke of W. ΄

Carolsruhensis (Caroli Hesychia), Karlsruhe, Germ. Contains the

304 NOMENCLATURE

collections made by the Margraves and Dukes of Baden for their
libraries at Pforzheim, Durlach, Rastatt ; the MSS. and books of
Johannes Reuchlin (Capnio) of Pforzheim; and the MSS. of
monasteries secularized since 1803, e.g. Meersburg, Reichenau,
S. Blasien. (Brambach, 1891-1896 ; Reichenau, Durlach, and Rastatt
codices catalogued by A. Holder, 1906.)

Carpensis, 5. v. Pius.

Carpentoractensis (Carpentoracte), Carpentras, Fr. Contains some
MSS. of Peiresc. (Lambert, 1862; Duhamel *.)

Carrio, Ludovicus Carrio (1547-1595) of Bruges, Belg.; jurist and
scholar, rival of Lipsius; cf. p. 116.

Carteromachus, Scipio (1467-1513), Italian scholar. MSS. in Vati-
can (Orsini).

Casalinus, Chezal-Benoit, Fr. Now at Bourges, a few at Paris.

Casanatensis, library bequeathed by Cardinal Girolamo Casanate
(1620-1700), librarian at the Vatican, to the Dominican convent of
S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. (Audiffredi, 1761; F. Bancalari,
Studi di fil. class., 1894.) MSS. of Bonelli.

Casaubon, Isaac (1559-1614), French scholar, librarian to Henry IV
of France, on whose death he removed to England, where he
received a pension from James 1. MSS. at Paris, Oxford (Bodleian),
and Brit. Mus. (Royal library).

Caseolinus, Marie Gabriel Florent Auguste, Comte de Choiseul-
Gouffier (1752-1817), French diplomatist and antiquarian, Ambas-
sador at Constantinople and, after the Revolution, librarian at
S. Petersburg.

Cassellanus (Cassella), Kassel, Germ. MSS. from Fulda.

Cas(s)inensis, Monte Cassino, It. (Bibl. Casinensis, 1874-1894 ; Cara-
vita, 1869-1871.)

Castiglionensis, Castiglione, N. It. MSS. at Florence (Laur. Con-
venti Soppressi).

Castro-Theodoricensis, Chateau Thierry, Fr.

Casulanus, Casole, It. Library of S. Nicholas Casularum. Portions
of it are now at Turin and Venice. (ἃ. Colline, 1886.) s. v.
Hydruntinus.

Cat(h)alaunensis (Catalaunum), Chalons-sur-Marne, Fr, (Molinier *.)

Catinensis (Catana), Catania, Sicily. Bibl. Universitaria, founded
1755, united in 1783 with Bibl. Ventimilliana. (M. Fava in Zocco
Rosa’s Athenaeum, i, n. 9.)

Cavensis (Cavea), Benedictine monastery at La Cava, Salerno, It.

Cenomanensis (Cenomanum), Le Mans, Fr.

Centulensis (Centula), S. Riquier, Fr.

Cervinus, Marcello Cervini, cardinal, afterwards Pope Marcellus 1
(d. 1555). Left MSS. to Sirleto (q.v.).

OF MANUSCRIPTS 305

Charcoviensis, Kharkov, Russ. University Library founded 1804 by
Alexander I.

Cheltenhamensis, s.v. Phillippsianus.

Chemiacus lacus, Chiemsee, Germ. At Munich.

Chemnicensis, Chemnitz, Germ. At Dresden and Leipzig.

Chiffletianus, Claude Chifflet (1541-1580), Professor of Law at Dole, Fr.,
possessor of the MS. of Pliny, H.. used by Dalechamps (1513-
1588). Now at Leyden.

Chigiana, library at Rome, in the Palazzo Chigi, founded by Alexan-
der VII (Fabio Chigi) in 1660. (Cat., 1764, Perleoni, Stud. filolog.,
1907.)

Chiovensis (Chiovia), Kiev, Russ. Cf. Uspenskyanus. (Petroff, 1875),

Chisiana, v. Chigiana.

Chremissanus, v. Cremisanus.

Cibinensis ecclesia, Hermannstadt on the river Zibin, Hungary,
s.v. Kemény. -

Cisalpinus, sometimes used for an Italian MS., e.g. A. of Thucydides.

Cisneros, s.v. Complutensis.

Cisterciensis (Cistercium), Citeaux, Fr, At Dijon. (Molinier, Omont*.)

Cizensis, Zeitz, Germ. MSS. of Reinesius. (C. G. Miller, 1806.)

Claravallensis (Claraevallis, Charavallis), Clairvaux, Fr. At Auxerre.
Dijon, Montpellier, Troyes.

Clarkianus, MSS. of Edward Daniel Clarke (1769-1822), traveller.
Bought for the Bodleian in 1809. (Cat. Oxford, 1812, 1815; Madan,
Summary Cat., iv. 297; Life by Otter, London, 1825.)

Claromontanus, (1) Clermont, the Jesuit College at Paris, founded in
1561 by Guillaume Duprat, Bp. of Clermont (Ferrand). After the
expulsion of the Jesuits in 1595 many of the Clermont MSS. were
sold to de Mesmes (s.v. Memmianus) and de Thou (Thuaneus) v.
Omont, Jnvent. Somm., Ὁ. xiii. On the second suppression of the
order in 1764 some of the MSS. belonging to it were sold to
Gerard Meerman. Some of these were bought by Sir Thomas
Phillipps in 1824 and sold by his executors in 1887 to the library at
Berlin. Others were bought for the University of Leyden. Others
are at Leeuwarden and at the Hague, Holland; cf. Pelicerianus.
(2) MSS. at Clermont-Ferrand, Fr. (Couderc.*)

Classensis, (1) Bibl. Classense, Ravenna, It. Named after the
village of Classe, from which the Camaldulensian monastery which
originally owned the library had migrated in 1523. MSS. in the
Ravenna Library since 1804. (Gk. MSS., cf. A. Martin, Melanges
Graux, p. 553; Mazzatinti.) (2) The Classen Library, Copenhagen,
founded 1482, now united with the University Library.

Claustriburgensis (Claustriburgum), Klosterneuburg (founded 1106),
Austr. (H. J. Zeibig, 1850.) Cf. Pataviensis.

473 x

306 NOMENCLATURE

Cluniacensis, abbey of Cluni, Fr. MSS. dispersed (e.g. at Paris,
Holkham). (Cf. Delisle, Ziventatre, 1884.)

Clusensis, monastery of S. Michael at La Chiusa, Piedmont, It.
Library dispersed at some unknown but early date.

Coislinianus, Henri Charles du Cambout de Coislin (1664-1732), Bp.
of Metz. He inherited the collection of his grandfather Pierre
Séguier (q.v.) and bequeathed it to the Benedictine abbey of
S. Germain-des-Prés. MSS. now in Bibl. Nat., Paris. (Catalogue
by Montfaucon.) A few at S. Petersburg, s.v. Dubrowski.

Colbertinus, Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), Minister of Finance
under Louis XIV of France. His collection of MSS. (cf. s.v.
Mesmes, Thuaneus) was sold by his descendants to the Royal
Library at Paris in 1732.

Collegium Graecum, Gk. College at Rome. MSS., including those of
Accidas and others, now in Vatican.

Collegium Romanum, Jesuit College at Rome, near S. Ignazio. MSS.
in the Vittorio Emanuele since 1873.

Colmarensis (Colmaria, Columbaria), Colmar, Germ. MSS. from
Murbach (A. M. P. Ingold, Le Bibliographe, 1897, i. 85.)

Colombina, library at Seville, Sp. Founded in 1539 by Fernando
Colén (d. 1540), son of Columbus. Now part of the library of the
Cathedral Chapter.

Coloniensis (Colonia Agrippina), Cologne, Germ. (1) The Chapter
Library. (Haenel, pp. 979-83; Jaffé and Wattenbach, 1874.)
The library was removed to Arnsberg in Westphalia in 1794
when the French invasion was imminent. It was afterwards
transferred to Darmstadt and was not returned to Cologne till
1867. (Account by Frenken, 1868.) (2) Stadtbibliothek, cf.
Wallrafianus.

Colotianus, Angelo Colocci (1467-1549), secretary to Leo X, Bp. ol
Nocera, It.; owner of the Medicean Vergil and the Arcerianus
(q.v.). (P. de Nolhac, Brbliothéque de Fulvio Orsint, 1887, p. 249.)

Columnensis, the Colonna collection in the Vatican (purchased in
1821). An earlier collection founded by Cardinal Ascanio Colonna
and others of the family in the 16th cent. was bought by Johannes
Angelus Altaemps and has passed through the Ottoboni collection
into the Vatican,

Comburgensis, Komburg, Germ. Cf. Neustetter.

Comensis (Comum), Como, It. (Gk. MSS., E. Martini, 1896.)

Compendiensis (Compendium), S. Corneille, Compiégne, Fr. Now
at Paris.

Complutensis. College of S. Ildefonso at Complutum or Alcala de
Henares, Sp., founded by Cardinal Ximenes in 1510. Now in the
University Library, Madrid.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 307

Condatescensis (Condatum), Condé, Fr. For Condate, Rennes, Fr.,
s.v. Redonensis.

Conimbricensis (Conimbrica), Coimbra, Portugal.

Constantinopolitanus, Constantinople. (1) Library of the Seraglio.
(Ε΄. Blass, Hermes, 1888, vol. xxili, pp. 219, 622.) (2) Patriarchal
Library in the Phanar.

Conventi soppressi, MSS. belonging to suppressed monasteries, now
in the Laurentian and National libraries, Florence, It.

Corbeiensis (Corbeia), (1) Corbie, Picardy, Fr. The best MSS. were
transferred to S. Germain (4. ν.) in 1638. Many others at Paris,
Amiens, S. Petersburg. (L. Delisle, 1861.) (2) Used for Corvei-
ensis (q.Vv.).

Corbinianus, the church of 5. Maria and S. Corbinian, Freising,
Germ. At Munich.

Coriniensis, Cirencester, Eng. Inthe Cathedral Library, Heretord.

Corisopitensis (Corisopitum), Quimper, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Corneliensis, s. v. Compendiensis.

Corsendonk, Belg. At Brussels.

Corsiniana, library at Rome in the Palazzo Corsini, founded by
Cardinal Neri Corsini in 1754. Since 1884 it has been united with
the library of the Accademia de’ Lincei. (Pélissier, in Melanges
αἱ Archeologie, vol. ix, 1889; Gk. codd. by Pierleoni, in Studi ital.
di fil. class., vol. ix, 1901; M. Gachard, La Bibliotheque des Princes
Corsint, 1869.)

Cortesianum Fragmentum, a supposed fragment of Livy or Corne-
lius Nepos, produced in 1884 by Cortesi. Now held to be a forgery.
(L. Traube, Paldogr. Forschung., Part iv, p. 47, 1904.)

Corveiensis (Corbeia nova), Korvey on the Weser, Germ. The
Benedictine house here was founded from Corbie in Picardy in
822. MSS. dispersed. Some are at Wolfenbiittel and at Marburg.

Corvinianus, Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary (1443(?)-1490).
His library at Ofen was neglected and dispersed in the 16th cent.
Part found its way into other libraries, part was captured by the
Turks in 1526, but restored to the Hungarian Academy in 1869
and 1877. (L. Fischer, 1878; W. Weinberger, 1908; L. Delisle,
Cabinet, i, p. 298.)

Cosinianus, John Cosin (1594-1672), Bp. of Durham. His library
now at Durham.

Cottonianus, library begun by Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (1571-1631) ;
dedicated to the public use by his grandson John in 1700. Partly
destroyed while in Ashburnham House, Westminster, in 1731.
Removed to the British Museum in 1753. Cf. p. 287. (J. Planta,
1802.) ; ᾿

Covarruvianus, Covarrubias, Didacus (Diego) (1512-1577), Abp. of

ΧΖ2

308 NOMENCLATURE

Segovia, Sp. MSS. at the Palace Library, Madrid. Some MSS.
belonging to his brother Antonius have passed through the collec-
tions of Pantin and Schott to the library at Brussels.

Cracoviensis (Cracovia), Cracow, Galicia. (1) Jagellonische
Universitats-Bibl. (W. Wislocki, 1877-1881.) (2) Czartoryski
Museum, founded by Isabella Princess Czartoryska in 1800.
(J. Korzeniowski, 1887-1893.)

Cremifanensis, Cremisanus (Cremisanum Monasterium), Krems-
minster, Austr. (P. H. Schmid, 1877-1881.)

Cremonensis, Cremona, It. Bibl. Governativa (Martini).

Crippsianus, John Marten Cripps (d. 1853), traveller and antiquary,
a companion of E. D. Clarke (q. v.) in his travels. He obtained the
MS. of Isaeus which is now in the Burney collection in the British
Museum.

Cromwellianus, MSS. once forming part of the Barocci collection,
presented to the Bodleian, Oxford, by Oliver Cromwell in 1654.
(H. O. Coxe, 1853.)

Cruquianus, Jacques Cruucke or De Crusque of Meesen, Flanders,
Professor of Greek, Bruges, 1544, d. circ. 1588. s.v. Horatius, p. 243.

Crusellinus, a MS. used by Simon du Bos or Dubois (1535-? 1580) in
his edition of Cic. Epp. ad Atticum in 1580. He stated that it
belonged to a physician named Petrus Crusel(l)ius (cf. Muretus,
Juvenilia Eleg, vil). M. Haupt proved in 1855 that this MS. and
another cited by du Bos as the Decurtatus were fabrications. Cf.
A. C. Clark, Class. Rev. 1895, p. 241.

Crusianus, MSS. of Martin Crusius or Krausz (1525-1607), Professor
of Greek at Tibingen. MSS. at Munich, Stuttgart, Tiibingen.

Cryptoferratensis, Grotta Ferrata, a monastery of monks of S. Basil
(founded 1004) near Rome. (A. Rocchi, 1884.) There are MSS.
from this monastery in the Vatican (especially the Barberiniana),
Naples, Brussels, Paris, Montecassino, Vienna.

Cujacianus, Jacques Cujas of Toulouse, French jurist (1522-1590).
Many of his MSS. were bought by Bongars (q. v.). Some at Paris.

Culturensis (S. Petri de Cultura), La Couture, Fr. At Le Mans.

Cunaeus, Petrus Cunaeus (Van der Kun), Professor of Law and
afterwards of Latin at Leyden (1586-1638). His MSS. were added
to the Leyden Library in 1749.

Curiensis (Curia Rhaetorum), Cur or Chur, Switz.

Curzon, s.v. Parhamensis.

Cusanus, Cues on the Mosel, Germ. Library of Cardinal Nicolaus
Cusanus (Nicolas Chrypffs or Krebs), 1409-1464. (F. X. Kraus,
1864; J. Marx, 1905; J. Klein in Serapewm, xxv. 353.) Preserved
in the hospital founded by him at Cues. Some MSS. at Brussels
and in the British Museum (Harleiani).

OF MANUSCRIPTS 309

Cygiranensis, S. Cyran, Fr. At Bourges.

Cygneensis (Cygnea), Zwickau, Germ.

Cyriacus, Ciriaco of Ancona, It. (1391-1450), antiquary. MSS. in
Vatican (Orsini).

D

Dacicus, title applied to MSS. from Hungary, e.g. codex of Valerius
Flaccus supposed to have been in the library of Matthias Corvinus
(q. v.), and now in the Vatican.

Dalburgius, Johannes, s.v. Palatinus.

Dalecampianus, Jacques Dalechamps (1513-1588) of Lyon, Fr.,
physician and scholar, editor of Pliny, H. NV.

Danesius, Pierre Danés, Bp. of Lavaur, 1497-1577. MSS. at Paris.

Danicus, s.v. Hauniensis,

Danielensis, bibl. com., San Daniele del Friuli, It. s.v. Forojuliensis.

Danielinus, Pierre Daniel, jurist and scholar, of Orléans, Fr. (crc.
1530-1603). Purchased codd. after the sack of Fleury (s.v. Floria-
censis) by the Huguenots in 1562. He edited Servius’ commen-
tary on Vergil in 1600. His MSS. were purchased by P. Petau and
J. Bongars. Petau’s share was sold by his son to Queen Christina
and is now in the Vatican. Bongars’ share was left by him together
with the rest of his collection to Berne (s.v. Bernensis).

Danneschioldiana, library of Danneskjold-Samsoe, now at Copen-
hagen. (Catalogue, 1732.)

Dantiscanus (Dantiscum, Gedanum), Danzig, Germ. (A. Bertling,
1892.)

Darmarius, Andreas, a Greek settled in Venice circ. 1560, who
copied and sold MSS. A list of MSS. known to have belonged
to him is given in Melber’s Polyaenus, 1887, p. Xvi.

Darmstadtinus, Hof-Bibliothek, Darmstadt, Germ. (P. A. F.
Walther, Newe Beitrdge, pp. 93-128, 1871.) Cf. Coloniensis.

Datanus, Carlo Dati (1619-1676), Professor of Classics at Florence,
1648. Some MSS. at Berlin.

Daumianus, Christian Daum (1612-1687), schoolmaster and scholar, of
Zwickau, where his MSS. still remain.

Daventriensis (Daventria), Deventer, Holland. (Catalogue, 1832-1880;
Omont, Pays Bas.)

Decembrius, Petrus Candidus, b. Pavia, 1399, Italian humanist. Most
of his MSS. were left to the Monastery of S. Maria delle Grazie.
A few, perhaps acquired from here by Borromeo in 1603, are in the
Ambrosian.

Decurtatus, any mutilated MS., e.g. Palatinus C of Plautus or the
Vaticanus G of Terence.

310 NOMENCLATURE

Delphensis (Delphi Batavorum), Delft, Holland.

Demidow Library, incorporated with the Moscow University Library.
Some MSS. were burnt in 1812.

Deodat(ijensis (Fanum Deodati), 5. Dié, Fr. (Michelant*.)

Derpitanus (Derpitum, Derbatum), Dorpat, Russia.

Dertusiensis (Dertusia), Tortosa, Sp. (H.Denifle and E. Chatelain,
Rev. d. Bibl. vi, pp. 1-61, 1896.)

Dervensis, Moutier-en-Der, Fr.

Dessaviensis (Dessavia), Dessau, Germ. Herzogliche Bibl.

Diezianus, the collection of G. F. von Diez, Legationsrath, purchased
for the Kgl. Bibliothek, Berlin, in 1817. It contains many MSS. from
the collection of the Dutch scholar Laurens van Santen (d. 1798).

Didotianus, MSS. belonging to Firmin Didot (1790-1836), French
publisher. (Catalogue, 1881.)

Diessensis, Diessen, Germ. At Munich.

Dietranzell, Germ. At Munich.

Digbeianus, MSS. of Sir Kenelm Digby (1603-1665) given to the
Bodleian at the instance of Abp. Laud. (W. D. Macray, 1883.)

Dillingensis (Dillinga), Dillingen, Germ.

Dionysiacus, S. Dionysios, Mt. Athos, Turkey.

Dionysianus, (1) S. Denis, Fr. At Paris. (2) Monastery of
S. Dionysios, Mt. Athos.

Divaeus, Petrus Divaeus or Pieter van Dieven, b. Louvain, 1536,
antiquary and historian of Brabant. His codex of Horace is
Leidensis 1274.

Divionensis, Diviobenignanus (Divio), Dijon, Fr. (Molinier and
others*.) Many MSS. come from the library of the Abbey of
S. Benignus and from Citeaux.

Dominicanus, MSS. of various Dominican monasteries, e.g. that at
Wirzburg, Germ. (Lehmann, Franciscus Modius, p. 124. MSS. at
Paris, Bologna, Palermo, Leipzig), and SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice.

Dominicini, library at Perugia, It. (Blume, J/er Jt, ii. 208.)

Donaueschingiensis, Donaueschingen, Germ, (K. A. Barack, Die
Haschr. der Frirstenburgischen Hofbibliothek, 1865.)

Dorvillianus, Jacques Philippe D’Orville (1690-1751), Professor of
Philology at Amsterdam. His MSS. were purchased for the
Bodleian in 1804. (Madan, Summary Cat., iv. 37.)

Douce, collection of Francis Douce (1757-1834), antiquary, bequeathed
by him to the Bodleian, Oxford. (Catalogue, 1840.)

Dousa, George (d. 1599), Dutch traveller and antiquary. MSS. at
Leyden.

Dovoriensis, Dover Priory, Eng. MSS. dispersed. (M.R. James, 1903.) —

Drepanensis, Trapani, Sicily. (N. Pirrone, Studi /taliani, 1905.)
Dresdensis (Dresda), Kgl. Bibliothek, Dresden, Germ, (F. A. Ebert,

\

ie τ. 5.9

OF MANUSCRIPTS 311

1822; K. Falkenstein, 1839; F. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1882-1883.)
Cf. Bunaviensis, Bruehliana, Matthaei.

Duacensis (Duacum), Douai, Fr. (Dehaisnes*; Riviére*.) MSS. from
Anchin.

Dublinensis (Dublinum, Dublana), Dublin, Ireland. (T. K. Abbott,
1900.) MSS. of Abp. Ussher.

Dubrovski, Peter, a Russian attaché at Paris in 1791. He purchased
MSS. from the monastic libraries which were dispersed at that
time, notably those of S. Germain-des-Prés. His collection was
purchased for the Imperial Library, Petersburg, in 1805. v. Delisle,
Cabinet, ii, p. 52.

Dudithianus, Andrew Dudith (1533-1589), Bp. of Finfkirchen or
Pécs, Hungary. (C. B. Stieff, 1756: R. Forster, V. Jahrb. 1900, p. 74.)

Duisburgensis (Duisburgum, Duicziburgum), Duisburg, Germ. Now
at Bonn. Cf. Teutoburgensis.

Dunelmensis (Dunelmum), Durham, Eng. (Cat. Veteres, Svrtees Soc.,
vol. vii: T. Rud, 1825.)

Dunensis, Dunes, Belg. At Bruges. (P. J. Laude, 1859.)

Duperron, Jacques Davy, cardinal, Bp. of Evreux (1556-1618). Left
his MSS. to S. Taurin d’Evreux (s. v. Eboricanus).

Duregensis (Duregum), Ziirich, Switz. s.v. Turicensis.

Durlacensis (Durlacum), Durlach, Germ. Some MSS. formerly here
in the library of the castle of the Margraves of Baden are now
at Karlsruhe.

Durobernia, Canterbury, Eng. s.v. Cantuariensis.

E

Ebersbergensis, Ebersberg, Germ. At Munich.

Ebnerianus, MSS. (e.g. Persius, Lucan) of Erasmus Ebner, a patrician
of Nuremberg, Germ., 16th cent., friend of Melanchthon.

Eboracensis (Eboracum), (1) York, Eng. (2) Ebrach, Germ. At
Wiirzburg.

Eborensis, (1) Evora, Portugal. (2) Collegium Eborense of Franciscans
at Rome (Ara Caeli). MSS. in Bibl. Nazionale, Rome.

Eboricanus (Eboricae, Ebroicum), Evreux, Fr. MSS. of S. Taurin
and Cardinal Duperron (1556-1618), Bp. of Evreux.

Ebroicensis, s. v. Eboricanus.

Echternachensis, s. v. Epternachensis.

Edelbergensis, s. v. Heidelbergensis.

Edinburgensis (Edinburgum, Edinum), Edinburgh, Scotland. (τ)
University Library. (2) Advocates’ Library, founded 1680.

Egerton, MSS. of Francis Henry Egerton, eighth Earl of Bridge-
water (d. 1829), bequeathed to the British Museum. (Additional
MSS., 1849.)

312 NOMENCLATURE

Egmondanus, Egmontanus, Egmundensis, Eglise d’Egmont, Belg.
At Brussels, Leyden, ἅς.

Eichstatt, s.v. Aureatensis.

Einsiedlensis (Einsilda), Eremitarum coenobium in Helvetiis in
Graesse, Einsiedeln, Switz. (Gabriel Meier, 1899.)

Elbingensis, Elbing, Germ.

Eliensis, Ely, Eng. The name is sometimes used for MSS. belonging
to John More, Bp. of Ely, given to the University Library, Cam-
bridge by George I in 1714.

Elnonensis, Elno or 5. Amand near Valenciennes, Fr. (Catalogue
of 1635 in Sanderus, Bibl. Belgica.) 5.ν. Valentianensis.

Emilianus, San Millan de la Cogolla, Burgos, Sp. s.v. Matritensis (4).

Emmeranus, Emmeramensis, S. Emmeram, Regensburg, Germ.
At Munich.

Engelbergensis, s. v. Angelomontanus.

Engolismensis (Engolisma), Angouléme, Fr. Also applied to the
surrounding district of the Angoumois.

Enochianus, Enoch of Ascoli, employed by Pope Nicholas V to search
for classical MSS. in France and Germany.

Eparchus, Antonius Eparchus, b. circa 1492 in Corfu. Ruined by the
Turkish invasion of 1537, he emigrated to Venice and became the
head of the trade in Gk. MSS. of which Venice was the centre.
(Omont gives a catalogue of his MSS. in Bibliotheque de l Ecole des
Chartes, 1892, vol. liii.) His MSS. are at Augsburg, Escurial,
Vatican (Ottoboniani), Paris, Milan, Munich, and Berlin.

Epternachensis (Epternacum), Echternach, Luxembourg. MSS. at
Luxembourg and at Paris. (A. Reiners, 1889.)

Eporediensis (Eporedia), Ivrea, It.

Erfurtensis (Erfurtum, Erfordia), Erfurt, Germ. The library con-
tains the collections of Amplonius von Ratinck of Rheinberg
(Berka) made circ. 1412. (W. Schum, 1887.) Some MSS. cited as
Erfurtenses are now at Berlin.

Erlangensis (Erlanga), Erlangen, Germ. (J. K. Irmischer, 1852.)

Escorialensis, The Escurial, near Madrid, Sp. (Montfaucon; Haenel,
p. 920; Pluer, /fer per Hispaniam: Gk. MSS., E. Miller, 1848; Ch.
Graux, Sur les origines du fonds grec, 1880; Lat. MSS., P. ἃ.
Antolin, rgto.) Cf. Augustinus, Mendoza.

Essiensis, Jesi, It. Cf. Aesiensis.

Estensis, library of the Este family at Modena, It. Contains MSS. of
G. Valla and Albertus Pius, Count of Carpi. (V. Puntoni, Studi
/talian?, 1896, iv. 379-536; History by ἃ. Bertoni, 1903; οἵ, T. W.
Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 12.)

Etonensis (Etona), Eton, Eng. (M. R. James, 1896.)

Etruscus, often used by the older scholars for Florentinus.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 313

Ettenheimmiinster, Germ. At Karlsruhe.

Eustorgianus (Bibliotheca Divi Eustorgii), 5. Eustorgio,a Dominican
monastery at Milan.

Exoniensis (Exonia), (1) Exeter, Eng. (2) Exeter College, Oxford.

Extravagantes, MSS. not forming part of independent collections at
Wolfenbiittel. s.v. Guelferbytanus.

F

Fabariensis, s. v. Fav-.

Fabricianus, (1) Fr. Fabricius Marcoduranus, i.e. Franz Schmidt
of Diiren, Germ. (1525-1573), Latin scholar, pupil of Turnebus.
(2) s.v. Hauniensis.

Fabroniana, s. v. Pistoriensis.

Faeschianus, Remi Faesch (1595-1667), jurist and bibliophile. The
MSS. belonging to the museum he founded are now in the Univer-
sity Library, Basel.

Falcoburgianus, Gerard Falckenburg of Nijmegen, Holland (1535-
1578), editor of Nonnus. Some MSS. at Breslau, Stadt- Bibl.

Farfensis, monastery of Farfa near Rome. MSS. in the Vittorio
Emanuele and Barberiniana, Rome; at Naples, and at Eton College.

Farnesi(a)nus, s.v. Neapolitanus (1).

Favariensis (Favaria, Fabaria), Pfaffers near Chur, Switz.

Feldbachensis, Feldbach, Switz. Library of the Jesuits.

Fernandina, another title of the Colombina Library at Seville, Sp.

Ferrarensis, Ferrara, It.

Ferrariensis (Ferrariae), Ferriéres, Fr. In the Vatican and at Berne,
Switz.

Fesulanus (Fesulae), S. Bartholomew, Fiesole, It. MSS. in the
Laurentian, Florence.

Feuillants, Monastére des, Paris. s.v. Fulienses.

Filelfo, F., s.v. Philelphus.

Firmitas, La Ferté-sur-Grosne, Fr. MSS. at Chalon-sur-Saone.

Fiscannensis (Fiscannum, Fiscamnum), Fécamp, Fr. At Rouen and
among the Bigotiani at Paris.

Flacius Illyricus, Matthias (1520-1575),a Lutheran theologian. MSS.
at Wolfenbiittel (Guelferbytani).

Flaviniacensis (Flaviniacum, Flaviacum), Flavigny, Fr. At Nancy.

Florentinus (Florentia), Florence, It.

Aedilium Florentinae ecclesiae, library founded by the Florentine
Republic crc. 1448 in the precincts of the Cathedral. The church
S. Petriin Caelo Aureo was used for the purpose by the permission
of Pope Nicholas V. MSS. now in Laurentian.

Abbatiae de Florentia, s. v.

314 NOMENCLATURE

' Laurentianus Conv. soppr. MSS. from suppressed monasteries ;
in the Laurentian Library since 1808.

Leopoldina. The title given to the various collections added to the
Laurentian by Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1765)
(afterwards Emperor of Austria). s. v. Mediceo-Laur.

Libri, MSS. sold by Libri (q.v.) to Lord Ashburnham. Repur-
chased for the Laurentian in 1884.

Magliabecchiana, library founded by Antonio Magliabecchi (1613-
1714), librarian to the Duke of Florence. Now in the Bibl. Naz.
Centrale. (G. Vitelli; Lat. MSS., A. Galante in Studi Ital. di
Jilolog. 1902, p. 326.)

Marucelliana, library bequeathed by Francesco Marucelli, of
Florence, on his death in 1703. Opened to the public in 1752.
(ἃ. Vitelli.)

Mediceo-Laurentiana, library founced by Cosimo in 1444. The
fall of the Medici family led to the dispersal of this library. Part
was purchased by the monks of San Marco, who in 1508 presented
these MSS. to Cardinal de’ Medici, afterwards Pope Leo X, who
added them to the library in the Villa Medici at Rome. On
his death they were returned to Florence and placed in the
library of San Lorenzo, built by Michelangelo in 1571, where
they stillremain. (Bandini, 1764-1778; E. Rostagno and N. Festa,
1893. Supplementary Ind. of Gk. MSS., Rostagno, Stud. Jt, 1898.)
In it are included the following collections, many of which were
added in 1765 by Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany: San
Marco (v. ¢vfra), Gaddiana, Strozziana, Fesulana, Aedilium Floren-
tinae Ecclesiae, Sanctae Crucis.

S. Marci, MSS. belonging to the church of S. Marco, founded by
Cosimo I, now in the Laurentian (1884) and in the Nazionale.

Nazionale Centrale (1861), contains Magliabecchiana, Palatina, and
other collections.

Palatina, the private library of the Dukes of Tuscany, formerly in
the Pitti Palace. Now in the Nazionale.

Riccardiana, library formed by Riccardo Romolo Riccardi c7re.
1590 and purchased from his descendants in 1815. (Lami, 1756;
5. Morpurgo, tg00. Gk. MSS. by ἃ. Vitelliin Studi /t. di filologia
class., il. 471, 1894.)

Sanctae Crucis, monastery of Santa Croce. MSS. in the Leopold
collection in the Laurentian since 1766.

Floriacensis (Floriacum ad Ligerim), Fleury-sur-Loire, Fr. Many
MSS. belonging to this monastery (which was sacked by
the Huguenots in 1562) came into the possession of Pierre
Daniel (1530-1603), whose collection was purchased by Jacques
Bongars (1554-1614) and his cousin Paul Petau (1568-1614), both

OF MANUSCRIPTS 315

natives of Orléans (s.vv. Eongarsianus, Petavianus). The few
MSS. which were preserved at the monastery are now at
Orléans. (Ch. Cuissard, 1885.) For MSS. at Paris v. Delisle,
Cabinet, ii, p. 364.

Florianensis, the Chorherrenstift at S. Florian, Austr. (A. Czerny,
Linz, 1871.)

Florio, bibliot., s.v. Utinensis.

Fons Avellana, Fonte Avellana, It.

Fontanellensis, Fontanelle or S. Wandrille, Fr. At Rouen.

Fontebla(n)densis, Bibl. Royale au Chateau de Fontainebleau.
Founded by Francis I, who transferred to it MSS. from Blois.
Now part of the Bibl. Nat. Paris. (H.Omont, 1889.) Cf. Bliaudifon-
tanus.

Forojuliensis (Forum Iulii), Friuli, It. Library of Sandaniele.
(A. Zorzi, 1899; Mazzatinti.)

Fossa Nuova, Piperno, It. In the Phillipps collection.

Fossatensis, S. Maur-des-Fossés, Fr. At Paris among the Sanger-
manenses.

Forteguerrianus, s. v. Pistoriensis.

Foucaultianus, Nicholas Joseph Foucault (b. Paris, 1643, d. 1721),
conseiller d’état and antiquary. MSS. at Leipzig, Paris, Leyden,
Glasgow. Some few were bought by Rawlinson and were left by
him to the Bodleian. (F. Baudry, Mémoire de N. J. F. in Docu-
ments inedits sur histoire de France, 1862.)

Foucquet, Nicolas, s. vv. Montchal, Fraxineus.

Francianus, Petrus Francius (1645-1704), of Amsterdam, poet and
orator. MSS. belonging to him were used by Graevius and other
scholars.

Francofurtanus (Francofurtum), (1) Frankfurt am Main (ad Moenum),
Germ. Stadt- Bibl. (J. H. Mai, Bibl. Uffenbachiana, 1720; E. Kelchner
1860.) (2) Frankfurt an der Oder (ad Viadrum), Germ. Kgl.
Friedrichs-Gymnasium (R. Schwarze, 1877).

Franequeranus (Franequera, Franechera), Franeker, Holland. MSS.
at Leeuwarden.

Franzoniana, library at Genoa, It.

Fraxineus, Raphaél Trichet du Fresne (1611-1661), an authority
on literary history and antiquities. His MSS. were purchased by
Foucquet. Many of his Gk. MSS. came from the collection of
Vincentius Grimani of Venice. In Bibl. Nat. Paris. (Delisle,
Cabinet, i, p. 269; Omont, Jv. d. mss. gr. iv, p. XCil.)

Freherianus, Marquard Freher of Augsburg, Germ. (1565-1614),
jurist and antiquary. MSS. dispersed ; some are among the Scali-
gerani at Leyden.

Freiburgensis (Freiburgum, Friburgum), (1) Freiburg im Breisgau

316 NOMENCLATURE

(Brisgoiae), Germ. (2) Freiburg im Uchtland (Nuithonum), Switz.
(Catalogue, 1852-1886.)

Freierianus, a fragment of Cic. ad Familiares ii. τ, belonging to Dr.
Freier of the Frankfort Gymnasium. (Philologus, 1867, p. 701.)

Fresne, du Fresne, s.v. Fraxineus.

Fridericianus, the library of the Kgl. Friedrichs-Gymnasium at
Breslau. (Catalogue included in the Gk. catalogue of the Stadt-
Bibliothek (Bibliotheca urbica) of Breslau, 1889.)

Frisingensis (Frisinga, Fruxinia), Freising, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Fugger(ijanus, (1) MSS. of Ulrich Fugger, of Augsburg (1528-1584),
Freiherr von Kirchberg. They were incorporated with the Bibl.
Palatina at Heidelberg and were transferred with it to the Vatican
in 1622, (2) MSS. of Hans Jacob Fugger (1516-1575). Now at
Munich. (3) MSS. of Raymund Fugger added to the Hofbibliothek,
Vienna, in 1656.

Fulcardi Mons, Foucarmont, Fr. At Paris among the Colbertini.

Fuldenses (Fulda, Fuldaha), Fulda, Germ. Landesbibliothek. (Kind-
linger, 1812; A. v. Keitz, 1890.) Sometimes called Bonifatiani after
S. Boniface, the founder of the monastery at Fulda. The oldest
MSS. are now at Kassel. (F. Falk, Leipzig, rgo2.)

Fulienses, the Feuillants, a Cistercian order founded at Languedoc,
Fr., circ. 1580. A few MSS. from their Paris house are in the
Bibliothéque Nationale. (Delisle, Cabinet, ii, p. 251.)

Furstenbergicus, -bergensis, (1) s.v. Donaueschingensis. (2) s.v.
Monasteriensis. (3) MSS. of Ferdinand v. Fiirstenberg (1626-1683),
Bp. of Paderborn, Germ. Cf. Rottendorphianus. (4) Private library
of Prince Fiirstenberg, Piirglitz, Bohemia.

Furstenfeldensis, Fiirstenfeld, Germ. MSS. at Munich.

Fuxensis, Collége de Foix, Toulouse, Fr. At Paris among the
Colbertini; among them are remains of the papal library at
Avignon and Peniscola. (Delisle, Cabinet, i, p. 498.)

G

Gaddianus, MSS. belonging to Francesco di Angelo Gaddi (fl. ere.
1496) and of other members of his family. Most MSS. in the Lau-
rentian at Florence since 1755; a few in Bibl. Nazionale (Maglia-
becchiana).

Gaertnerianus, C. G. Gaertner of Leipzig, owner of MSS. of Livy

circ, 1750.
Gaibacensis, s. v. Pommersfelden.
Gaigniéres, Roger de, of Paris (d. 1715). Left Gk. MSS. to the

Royal Library in 1715.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 317

Galeanus, Thomas Gale (1635-1702), high master of S. Paul’s School,
London, and Dean of York. His MSS. were bequeathed by his
son Roger to Trin. Coll., Camb.

Gambalungiana, library at Rimini, It. Founded circ. 1617 by
bequest of Alessandro Gambalunga, jurist.

Gandavensis (Gandavum, Ganda), Ghent, Belg. (J. de Saint-Genois,
1849-1852.)

Garampi, Giuseppe, cardinal, collector. (Catalogue, Rome, 1798.)
Some MSS. at Rimini in the Gambalungiana, others in the Vatican.
(Blume, J¢er [tal., ii. 234.)

Gatianus, S. Gatien, Tours, Fr. s.v. Turonensis.

Gaulminus, Gilbert Gaulmyn, b. 1585, doyen des maitres des requétes ;
man of learning and collector. Part of his library was bought by
Queen Christina (s. v. Reginensis), but most has passed to the Bibl.
Nat. through various collections (e.g. Telleriana). He died in 1655.

Gedanensis (Gedanum), Danzig, Germ. Cf. Dantiscanus.

Gemblacensis (Gemblacum), Gembloux, Belg. At Brussels.

Gem(m)eticensis (Gemmeticum, Gemmenticum), Jumiéges, Fr. At
Rouen.

Genevensis, Geneva, Switz. (J. Senebier, 1779.) Most of the Gk. MSS.
were given in 1742 by Ami Lullin, Professor of Ecclesiastical
History, who had purchased them from the collection of the Petaus
(5. v. Petavianus).

Genuensis (Genua, Janua), Genoa, It. (1) University Library.
(E. Martini, Gk. MSS. 1896.) (2) Bibl. Carolina (5. v.).

Gerolamini, s. v. Gir-.

Geronensis, Gerona, Sp.

Gersdorfianus, library of Joachim Gersdorff, 1611-1661. In Royal
Libr., Copenhagen.

Gesner, Conrad (1516-1565), of Ziirich, scholar and physician. MSS.
at Ziirich.

Gianfilippi. For this Veronese collection v. Blume, Jer éal., i. 265-6,
also s.v. Saibantinus.

Gi(e)ssensis (Giessa), Giessen, Germ. Univ.-Bibl. with which the von
Senckenberg’sche Bibl. has been united since 1835. (J. V. Adrian,
1840; F. W. Otto, 1842.)

Gifanius, Hubert van Giffen (1435-1604) of Buren, Holland, jurist
and scholar.

Gigas, a codex of the N. T. at Stockholm, so called from its size.

Girolamini, Bibl. dei, Naples, It. s.v. Neapolitanus.

Gislenianus, 5. Ghislain, Belg. Some MSS. from hereare in Phillipps
collection.

Gissensis, s. v. Giessensis.

Glareanus, Glarus, Switz.

318 NOMENCLATURE

Glasguensis (Glasgua), Glasgow, Scotland. Cf. Hunterianus,
Glastoniensis (Glastonia, Glasconia), Glastonbury, Eng.
Glogav(i)ensis (Glogovia), Glogau, Germ. MSS. at Breslau.
Glunicensis, Gleink, Austr. At Linz.

Goerresianus, MSS. mostly of mediaeval writers, belonging to
Johannes Joseph von Gérres, 1776-1848. Many came from S.
Maximin at Trier. (Traube, NV. Archiv f. alt. deutsche Gesch.-Kunde,
vol. xxvii, p. 737-) At Koblenz and Berlin.

Goldastianus, Melchior Goldast von Heimingsfeld (1576-1635), Swiss
Protestant jurist ; bequeathed part of his library to Bremen, Germ.
Part was purchased by Queen Christina of Sweden and is now in
the Vatican.

Gorlicensis (Gorlicium), Gérlitz, Germ. (R. Joachim, Gesch. εἰ, Milich’-
schen Bibliothek, 1876.)

Goslarianus, Goslar, Germ. MSS. from the monastery on the Geor-
genberg, which was destroyed in 1527. Now at Wolfenbiittel (s. v.
Guelferbytanus).

Gothanus (Gotha, Gota), Gotha, Germ. Libr. founded by Herzog
Ernst der Fromme, 1640-1675. (Ε. 5. Cyprianus, 1714.)

Gotingensis (Gotinga), Géttingen, Germ. (ΝΥ. Meyer, Verzeichnis
der Handschr. im Preussischen Staate, 1893; Καὶ. Dziatzko, 1900.)

Gottorpianus (Gottorpia), Gottorp, Schleswig-Holstein,Germ. MSS.,
including those from Bordesholm, are now at Copenhagen (Steffen-
hagen and Wetzel, Kiel, 1881), Wolfenbiittel, Leyden, Hamburg.

Gotwicensis, Géttweig or Géttweih, on the Danube, Austr.

Graeciensis (Graecium), Graz, Austr. (J. v. Zahn, 1864.)

Graevianus, Jan Georg Graefe or Graevius (1632-1703), Professor of
History at Utrecht and Historiographer to William III of England.
Part of his collection is in the British Museum (Harleian), part
at Heidelberg. (Cf. A.C. Clark, Newe Heidelberger Jahrbticher, 1891,
p. 238.)

Granvella, Antoine Perrenot, Cardinal Granvella (1517-1586), Bp. of
Arras, Abp. of Besancon, minister to Philip II of Spain. MSS. at
Leyden, Amsterdam, Vatican, Besancon,

Gratianopolitanus (Gratianopolis, Grannopolis), Grenoble, Fr.
(Fournier and others ἢ.)

Gravisset, s.v. Bongarsianus.

Greshamense Collegium, London, founded by Sir Thomas Gresham
(? 1519-1579), a London merchant.

Grimani,a Venetian family (e.g. Cardinal Domenico G., d.1523). MSS.
at Venice, Udine, Paris, Holkham: Vincentius Grimani cf. Fraxineus.

Gripheswaldensis (Gripeswalda, Gryphiswalda), Greifswald, Germ.

Groninganus (Groninga), Groningen, Holland, (H. Brugmans, 1898,
cf. Zentralbl. f. Bibl., 1898, vol. iv, p. 562.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS oN ate

Gronovianus, MSS. of Johann Friedrich (1611-1671) and his son
Jakob Gronoy (1645-1716), scholars. MSS. at Leyden since 1785.

Grotta Ferrata, s.v. Cryptoferratensis.

Gruterus, lanus (1560-1627), librarian at Heidelberg, 1605. MSS. at
Rome and Munich since the sack of Heidelberg in 1622 (Serapeumz,
XV. 100, XvVill. 209).

Guarinus, Guarino of Verona (1370-1460), Italian scholar. MSS. at
Ferrara, Paris, Rome, Vienna, Erlangen.

Guarnacciana, s.v. Volaterranus.

Gudianus, Marquard Gude (1635-1689) of Rendsburg, Schleswig-
Holstein, a Danish collector. His MSS. were sold by auction in
1706 (Auction Catalogue, Hamburg, 1706), and some MSS. were
acquired for Wolfenbittel in 1710. (O. von Heinemann, 1886.) Cf.
Tiliobrogianus, Salmasianus, Rottenderphianus, Bordesholm.

Guelferbytanus (Guelferbytum), Wolfenbiittel, Germ. Bibl. Augus-
tana or Augustea, founded by Herzog August der Jiingere of Bruns-
wick, d. 1666. It contains, besides the collection of its founder, the
Blankenburgenses, Gudiani, Helmstadienses, Weissenburgenses.
(v. Heinemann, 1898.)

Guyetus, Fr. Guyet (1575-1655), French scholar. MSS. at Paris.

Guzman, 5. v. Salmanticensis.

Gyraldensis, Lilius Gregorius Gyraldus (Giglio Gregorio Giraldi)
(1479-1552), of Ferrara; protonotary Apostolic.

H

Haenelianus, Gustav Friedrich Haenel (1792-1878), travelled over
the greater part of Europe examining MSS. in libraries. Many
MSS. acquired by him on his travels are now in the University
Library, Leipzig, and at the Escurial.

Haffligensis, s. v. Affligeniensis.

Hafniensis, s. v. Hauniensis.

Hagensis (Haga Comitum), The Hague, Holland.

Hagia Laura, monastery on Mt. Athos, Turkey.

Halberstadiensis, Halberstadt, Germ. Cf. Halensis.

Halensis (Hala Saxonum), Halle, Germ. MSS. from Bergs, Magde-
burg, Halberstadt.

Hamburgensis (Hamburgum), Hamburg, Germ. Stadtbibliothek
(Johanneum). MSS. of Lindenbrog, Holstenius, J. C. Wolf, and
Uffenbach. (H. Omont, Zentralblatt f- Bibl., 1890, vol. vii, p. 351.)

Hamiltonensis, the collection of the twelfth Duke of Hamilton
purchased for the Berlin Library in 1882. (Wattenbach, Neues
Archiv, Vili. 327.)

320 NOMENCLATURE

Hannoveranus (Hanovera), Hannover, Germ. (1) Stadtbibl. f. 1440.
(Grotefend, 1844.) (2) Kgl. 6ff. Bibl. (Bodemann, 1867.)

Harlay, Achille de (1689-1707), Président du Parlement de Paris. His
collection passed from De Chauvelin in 1755 to the library of S.
Germain (q. v., also Delisle, Cabinet, ii, p. 102). Cf. 5. ν. 5. Germani.

Harleianus, the collection begun by Robert Harley, afterwards Earl
of Oxford and Mortimer (1661-1724). Now in the British Museum.
(Nares, 1808.)

Harrisianus, A. C. Harris, the discoverer of the papyrus of Hyperides
in 1847. Purchased by the Brit. Mus. in 1872.

Hase, Charles Benoit, Greek scholar, employed in Paris Library,
1805. Some of his MSS. were purchased for the Paris Library
on his death in 1864.

Hauniensis (Haunia, Hafnia), Copenhagen, Denmark. (1) Royal
Library. MSS. of Askew, Lindenbrog, Rostgaard, Thott, and MSS.
from Gottorp. (J. Eyriksson, 1786; C. G. Hensler, Gk. MSS. 1784;
Notice sommaire des mss. grecs par Ch. Graux, 1879.) (2) Uni-
versity Library. (S. B. Smith, 1882.) Contains the collection of
J. A. Fabricius, added in 1770.

Havercampianus, Sigbert Havercamp (1684-1742), Professor at
Leyden, Holl.

Heidelbergensis (Heidelberga), Heidelberg, Germ. Cf. Palatinus.

Heiligenkreuz, v. S. Crucis.

Heilsbronnensis, Heilsbronn, Germ. (Hocker, 1731.) MSS. at Stutt-
gart, Erlangen.

Heinsianus, MSS. of Daniel Heinsius (1580-1665), Professor at Leyden,
and of his son Nicholas (1620-1681). Many are in the Bernard
(5. v.) collection in the Bodleian, some at Leyden ; some belonging
to Nicholas are among the Reginenses in Vatican.

Helenopolis, Frankfurt am Main, Germ. s.v. Francofurtanus.

Helleriana bibliotheca, collection of Joseph Heller (1798-1849) at
Bamberg. (F. Leitschuh, 1887.)

Helmstadiensis (Helmstadium), the library founded at Helmstedt,
Germ., by Herzog Friedrich Ulrich in 1614. On the suppression
of the University in 1810 the library was dispersed between
Marburg, Brunswick, Gottingen. The MSS. sent to Géttingen were
transferred circ. 1822-1832 to Wolfenbiittel, from whence they had
been brought in 1614.

Hemsterhusius, MSS. of Tiberius Hemsterhuys (1686-1766). At
Leyden since 1790.

Henochianus, s. v. Enoch.

Herbipolitanus (Herbipolis, Wirceburgum), Wirzburg, Germ.
(Catalogue, 1886; History by O. Handwerker, 1904.) Some MSS.
at Munich. Some from S. Kilian’s now in Bodleian (Laudiani).

Fue Se Bade Soe.

eee a ae

OF MANUSCRIPTS ark

Hermannstadt, s.v. Cibinensis.

Hierosolymitanus (Hierosolyma), Jerusalem, Pal. (1) The Patri-
arch’s Library. (A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, 1891-1899; K. M.
Koikulides, 1889.) (2) MSS. from the Bibliotheca S. Crucis at
Jerusalem, now in the Bibl. Vittorio Emanuele, Rome. (3) Library
of Mar Saba, now united with (4) Library of the Convent of the
Holy Sepulchre. (Rendel Harris, 1889.)

Hildeshemensis (Hildeshemium, Ascalingium), Hildesheim, Germ.
Cathedral or Beverina Library founded 1681 by Martin Bever (1625-
1681). Some MSS. from here at Wolfenbiittel. (C. Ernst, 1909.)

Hilleriana bibliotheca, s. v. Helleriana.

Hirschaugiensis (Hirschaugia, Hirschavia), Hirschau, Germ.

Hispalensis, Seville, Sp. s.v. Columbina,

Hittorpianus, MSS. (mostly in the Cathedral Library, Cologne) used
or owned by Melchior Hittorp (1525-1584), theologian, Dean of the
collegiate church of S. Cunibert, Cologne.

Hoeschelianus, David Hoeschel (1556-1617), librarian at Augsburg.
Some of his MSS. are among the Augustani at Munich. One
(Royal 16 D. X) is in the Brit. Mus.

Hohenfurtensis, Hohenfurth, Bohemia.

Holkhamicus, the collection made by the first Earl of Leicester
(Thomas Coke, Baron Lovel, 1752-1842), now at Holkham, Eng.
(R. Forster, Philologus, xii. 158 (1883); Edwards, Memoirs of
Libraries, ii. 154-7.) Cf. 5. Iohannis in Viridario.

Holmiensis (Holmia), Stockholm, Sweden. (G. P. Lilieblad and
J. G. Sparvenfeld, 1706.)

Holstenianus, s.v. Barberinus. Cf. Angelicanus.

Hubertianus, S. Hubert in the Ardennes, Belg.

Huetianus, Pierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721), Bp. ot Avranches. His
MSS. presented to Bibl. Royale, Paris, in 1763.

Hugenianus, collection of Constantin Huygens (1596-1687) of
Zuylichem, Holl., Dutch noble, statesman, and poet. Dispersed;
some MSS. now at Leyden, Holl.

| Hulpheriana, collection at Vasteras, Sweden. In the Laroverks-
bibliotek. Cf. Arosiensis.

Hulsianus, MSS. of Samuel van Hulst, an advocate at the Hague.
(Catalogue, Bibliotheca Hulsiana, Hagae Comitum, 1730.)

Hummelianus, Bernhard Friedrich Hummel (1725~1791),the possessor
of a MS. of the Germania of Tacitus, since lost.

| Hunterianus, Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, Scot., founded by bequest
of Dr. William Hunter (1718-1783) in 1807. (P. H. Aitken, 1908.)

Hurault, s. v. Boistallerianus.

Hydruntinus (Hydruntum), Otranto, It. There was a collection
of MSS. in the Greek monastery of S. Nicola di Casole close to

473 Y

322 NOMENCLATURE

Otranto, from which Bessarion obtained many of his MSS. (e.g. that
of Q. Smyrnaeus). It was destroyed by the Turks in 1480. (Cf.
Antonius de Ferrariis Galateus, De situ lapygiae, Lycii (Lecce),
1727, pp. 48-9; H. Omont, Rev. des Etudes grecques (1890), ill.
381-01.)
I

Ianiniana, libr. of church of 5. Benignus, Dijon, Fr. (Cat, Gen. des
MSS. des Bibl. Publ. de France, vol. v, p. 453.)

Indersdorfensis, Indersdorf, Germ. At Munich.

Ingolstadiensis (Ingolstadium), Ingolstadt, Germ. At Munich.
Insula Barbara, Monastery of 8. Benedict on the [le Barbe in the
river Sadne near Lyon, Fr., plundered in 1562, destroyed in 1793.

Insulensis, Lille, Fr. (Rigaux Desplanque”*.)

Intrensis, Intra, It.

Ioannensis, (1) S. John Baptist College, Oxford (H. O. Coxe). (2)
S. John’s College, Cambridge (B. M. Cowie).

Ivreensis, Ivrea, It. (Catalogued in Mazzatinti.)

J

Jenensis, Jena, Germ. University Library. MSS. of J. A. Bosius.
(J. C. Mylius, 1746.)

Jeremutensis, Yarmouth, Eng.

Justinianus, MSS. belonging to the Giustiniani, a Venetian family.
A few in the Marciana, but most in private hands, e. g. Holkham.

Justinopolitanus (Justinopolis), Convent of 5. Ann, Capo d’lstria,
Dalmatia.

K

Kaisheimensis, Kaisheim, Germ. At Munich.

Karlsburg, s. v. Weissenburg.

Kasan, Russia. University Library. (Artemjev, 1882.)

Kemény, Graf Joseph von, historian (1806-1855), founder of the
library at Hermannstadt, Hungary. 5. v. Cibinensis.

Kenanensis, Kells, Ireland.

Kielensis (Kilia), Kiel,Germ. (H. Ratjen, Serapewm, xxxi, p. 273.)

Kiew, Russia. s. v. Chiovensis.

Klosterneuburg, s. v. Niwenburgensis.

L

Labronicus (Labronis portus), Leghorn, It. Bibl. Comunale Labronica.

Ladenburgensis, Ladenburg, Germ. Johann Dalberg, Bp. of Worms,
d. 1503, had a library here which was subsequently incorporated
with the Palatine at Heidelberg (s. v. Palatinus).

Lagomarsinianus, Girolamo Lagomarsini (1698-1773), a Jesuit, Pro-

OF MANUSCRIPTS 323

fessor of Rhetoric at Florence and subsequently at Rome. He
collated many MSS. of Cicero.

Lambecius, Petrus (1628-1680), of Hamburg, librarian at Vienna.
His MSS. were purchased for the Hefbibliothek after his death.
Lambethanus, the library of the Abp. ot Canterbury at Lambeth

Palace, London. (Todd, 1812.)

Lammens, a private library at Ghent, Belg., now at Brussels.

Landianus, MSS. in the Passerini-Landi Library, founded by Pier
Francesco Passerini, d. 1695, at Piacenza, It.

Lascaris, (1) Constantine Lascaris (1434-1501) of Constantinople,
taught Greek at Milan 1460-1465, and later at Messina, to which
town he left his MSS. They were removed to Palermo in 1679 and
later to Spain. In 1712 they were placed in the newly founded
National Library in Madrid. (2) Janus Lascaris (1445-1535), Greek
refugee patronized by Lorenzo de’ Medici. While in France he
assisted G. Budé in founding the library at Fontainebleau for
Francis I. On his return to Italy he aided Cardinal Ridolfi (q. v.)
in forming his library. On an autograph list of his MSS. in the
Vatican v. K. Κα. Miller, Zentralbl. f. Bibliothekswesen, 1884, 1. 333.

Lassbergensis, Landsberg, Bavaria, Germ. At Freiburg i. B.

Latiniacensis (Latiniacum), the Abbey of S. Furcy, Lagny-sur-
Marne, Fr.

Laubacensis, s. v. Lobiensis.

Laudensis (Laus Pompeia), Lodi, It. At Piacenza.

Laudianus, MSS. of William Laud (1573-1645), Abp. of Canterbury.
In the Bodleian (H. O. Coxe, 1858; Index, 1885) and in S. John’s
College, Oxford (H. O. Coxe, 1852).

Laudunensis (Laudunum, Lugdunum Clavatum), Laon, Fr. (F.
Ravaisson*.)

Laureacensis, (1) Lorsch, Monastery of S. Nazarius, Germ. MSS.
now at Heidelberg (since 1555), the Vatican (5. v. Palatinus), Vienna,
and Montpellier. (History by F. Falk, 1g02.) (2) Lorch, near Passau,
Germ.

Laurensis, The Laura on Mt. Athos, Turkey.

Laurentianus, (1) s.v. Florentinus. (2) Collegium Laurentianum at
Cologne.

Laurishamensis, v. Laureacensis (1).

-Lausannensis (Lausanna), Lausanne, Switz. MSS. at Berne.

Lavantinus, 5. v. S. Pauli in Carinthia.

Le Caron, private library at Troussures, Fr., contains MSS. from
Luxeuil.

Leghorn, s. v. Labronicus.

Legionensis (Legio septima gemina), Leén, Sp. Cathedral Library.
(Beer and E. Diaz Jimenez.)

vie

324 NOMENCLATURE

Leidensis, Lugdunensis (Lugdunum Batavorum), Leyden, Holland.
Contains Belvacenses, and MSS. of Chifflet, Gronovius, Heinsius,
Lipsius, Perizonius, Scaliger, I. Voss, Vulcanius. (Senguerdius,
Gronovius and Heyman, 1716; Geel, 1852; Catalogue of Vulcanici
and Scaligerani, 1910.)

Lemberg, s. v. Leopoliensis.

Lemovicensis (Lemovicum), Limoges, Fr. (Guibert.*) Cf. S. Martialis.

Lentianus (Lentia), Linz, Austria.

Leodi(c)ensis (Leodicum, Leodium), Liége or Liittich, Belg. (M.
Grandjean, 1877: Wittert collection, J. Brassine, 1910.)

Leopoldi(a)na, s. v. Florentinus.

Leopoliensis (Leopolis, Leoberga), Bibl. Ossoliniana, Lemberg, Austr.
(W. Ketrzinski, 1881.)

Leovardiensis (Leovardia), Leeuwarden, Holland. Provincial Library
of Friesland containing MSS. of the Jesuit College of Clermont, Fr.
(Eekhoff, 1871-1897.)

Lesdiguiéres, Alphonse de Créquy, Comte de Canaples and in 1703
Duc de L. He died in 1711 and his library was dispersed in 1716,
part being purchased by the Benedictines of Marmoutiers.

Libri, Guillaume Brutus Icilius Timoléon Libri Carucci della
Sommaia (1803-1869) fled to France in 1830, and in 1841 was made
secretary to a Commission appointed to prepare a catalogue of the
MSS. in public libraries. He profited by the negligence of many
of the provincial librarians, and stole large numbers of MSS. from
Dijon, Lyon, Grenoble, Carpentras, Montpellier, Poitiers, Tours,
Orléans, and other towns. By 1845 he had acquired a collection
of 2000 MSS. After an unsuccessful attempt to sell them to the
British Museum and the University of Turin, he found a purchaser
in the Earl of Ashburnham, who paid £8000 for the collection in
1847. Suspicion fell upon Libri soon afterwards and he fled to
England in 1848. In 1850 he was condemned in absence to ten
years’ imprisonment. He maintained his innocence and succeeded
in securing the interest of some prominent men, such as Guizot,
but failed in the attempt to get the verdict against him reversed.
On the death of Lord Ashburnham in 1878 negotiations were begun
by France and Italy for the recovery of such part of the Libri
collections as had been stolen from their Public Libraries,
These negotiations in the end proved successful. In 1884
Italy purchased a portion of the MSS. (now in the Laurentian),
while France secured the remainder in 1888. (P/ilologus, 1886,
vol. xlv, p. 201.)

Lichfeldensis, Lichfield, Eng.

Lignitiensis (Lignitium), Liegnitz, Germ. Library of SS. Peter and
Paul. (W. Gemoll, 1900.)

» Zeke!

1.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 325

Liliocampensis, s. v. Campililiensis.

Lincolniensis, MSS. of Lincoln College, Oxford; now deposited in
the Bodleian, also called Lindunensis.

Lincopiensis (Lincopia), Linképing, Sweden. (Cf. R. Forster, De
Libanii libris MSS. Rostock, 1877.) MSS. of Benzelius.

Lindenbrogius, s.v. Tiliobrogianus.

Lindesianus, Lord Crawford’s Library at Haigh Hall. MSS. in
Rylands’ Library, Manchester, since 1901.

Lindunensis, s.v. Lincolniensis.

Lingonensis (urbs Lingonum), Langres, Fr.

Lipsiensis (Lipsia), Leipzig, Germ. (1) University Library or
Albertina (formerly Bibl. Paulina). (L. J. Feller, 1686; Gk. MSS.,
Gardthausen; Lat. MSS., R. Helsigg, 1905.) MSS. trom Pegau,
Lauterberg, Chemnitz, Pirna, were transferred here circ. 1540.
The library contains the MSS. collected by Haenel (5. ν.). (2) Stadt-
bibl. or Bibl. Senatoria (A. G. R. Naumann, 1838), containing MSS.
of Matthias Corvinus.

Lipsius, Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Some of his MSS. are at Leyden
(Gk. MSS., V. Gardthausen), others were sold as late as 1722.

Lirensis, s.v. Lyrensis.

Lisbonensis, s. v. Olisiponensis.

Livineius, Jan Lievens (1546-1599), scholar, Canon at Antwerp
(cf. Bruxellensis).

Lobcoviciensis, Library (Fideikommissbibliothek) of Furst Moritz
von Lobkowitz at Raudnitz, Bohemia, founded by Bohuslav von
Lobkowitz, circ. 1491, at Hassenstein. (E. Gollob, Verseichnis d. gr.
Hss. in Osterreich, 1903, p. 134.)

Lobiensis, Lobbes, Belg. At Brussels. (Omont, Rev. des Bibl. 1891,
vol. i, p. 3.)

Loisellus, s.v. Avicula.

Lolliniana, library at Belluno, It.

Londin(i)ensis (Londinum).

(1) British Museum, containing the following collections: Arundel,
Burney, Cotton, Egerton, Harleian, Old Royal (Casley, 1734), New
Royal, Sloane. Other MSS. are catalogued as ‘ Additional MSS.
Papyri, J. Forshall, Pt. i. 1839 ; F. G. Kenyon, 1893- . Cat. of Anc.
MSS., 2 vols. (with facsimiles), 1881-4; H.Omont, Nofes sur les
MSS. grecs du B.M. in Bibl. de V Ecole des Chartes, vol. xlv, 1884.

(2) Londinum Gothorum, Lund, Swed.

Longolianus, Christophe de Longueil (1488-1522), Ciceronian scholar,
friend of Cardinal Pole.

Lorrianus, Lorry, a physician at Paris circ. 1810, owned a MS. of
Nicander which has since disappeared.

Lovaniensis (Lovanium), Louvain, Belg. Cf. Parcensis.

326 NOMENCLATURE

Lovel(ijanus, MSS. acquired by ‘Sir Thomas Coke of Holkham.
afterwards Baron Lovel, d. 1759. Cf. Holkhamicus.

Lubecensis, Liibeck, Germ. (J. H. v. Melle, 1807; Omont, Zentralol.
1890.)

Lucchesiana, library at Girgenti, Sicily.

Lucensis (Luca), Lucca, It. (1) Biblioteca Pubblica. (2) Bibl. Palatina,
containing codd. of Lucchesini and S. Maria di Corte Landini (in
curtis Orlandigorum or Orlandigerorum). Partly transferred to
Bibl. Nazionale at Parma in 1847. (A. Mancini, Florence, 1902.)
Libr. of Canons of 5. Martin is catalogued in Blume, 57d/., p. 53.

Lucernensis, Lucerne, Switz. (Keller, 1840-1866.)

Lugdunensis, (1) Leyden, Holland (s.v. Leidensis). (2) Lyon, Fr.
(L. Niepce, 1876.)

Lullin, s.v. Genevensis.

Lunaeburgensis, monastery of S. Michael, Liineburg, Germ. At
Gottingen. (A. Martin, 1827.)

Lunaelacensis, Mondsee, Austr. At Vienna.

Lupara, the Louvre Museum, Paris. (Egyptian papyri.)

Lusaticus (Lusatia), Lausitz, Germ. The term is loosely applied to
MSS. from Gorlitz, Zittau, and other towns in this district.

Luxemburgensis, Bibl. de l’Athénée de Luxembourg. A. Namur, 1855.

Luxoviensis (Luxovium), Luxeuil, Fr. Cf. Beauvais, Le Caron.

Lyrensis or Lyranus, Lyre, Fr. At Evreux.

M
Madritensis, s. v. Matrit-.

Maffei, Scipio (1675-1755), Veronese scholar and antiquary. MSS.
in Capitular Library, Verona.

Magdalenaeus, library of S. Maria Magdalena at Breslau founded in
1601, incorporated with the Stadtbibliothek in 1865 (5. v. Vratis-
laviensis).

Magdeburgensis, Magdeburg, Germ. Cf. Halensis.

Magliabecchianus, Antonio Magliabecchi (1633-1714), librarian at
Florence. His collection is nowin the Bibl. Nazionale there (s.v.
Florentinus).

Maguntinus, s. v. Mog-.

Maihingensis, Maihingen,Germ. (Grupp,1897.) Cf. Wallersteinensis.

Majus Monasterium, Benedictine monastery at Marmoutiers, Fr.
At Tours.

Malatestianus, library at Cesena, It., founded by Domenico Malatesta
Novello in 1452, united since 1797 with the Bibl. Comunale. (J. M.
Muccioli, 1780-1784; R. Zazzeri, 1887.)

Malleacensis, Maillezais, Fr.

Mallersdorfiensis, Mallersdorf, Bavaria. At Munich.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 327

Malvito, a monastery near Cosenza in Calabria, It.

Mancuniensis (Mancunium), Manchester, Eng. John Rylands
Library, founded in 1goo by Mrs. Rylands in memory of her
husband, a cotton merchant of Wigan (1801-1888). It includes the
famous Althorp (q. v.) library, purchased by her from Earl Spencer
in 1892. Cf. Lindesianus.

Manetti, Giannozzo, Italian scholar and collector (1396-1497). Some
of his MSS. are in the Laurentian.

Mannheimensis, Mannheim, Germ. At Munich.

Mantuanus, Mantova, It. Bibl. Gonzaga, cf. Padolironensis. (E.
Martini, Gk. MSS. 1896.) The old library of the Gonzagas was
plundered in 1630. Many MSS. came into the possession of
Cardinal Richelieu. After the death of Duke Ferdinando Carlo IV
in 1708 part of the library was sold to Venice and passed through
Recanati to the Marciana. The remainder was sold in 1735, and
part of this has come through the Canonici collection into the
Bodleian.

Marburgensis, Marburg, Germ., including Corbeienses Helmstadi-
enses. (Latin codd., C. F. Hermann, 1831.)

Marchandus, MSS. of Prosper Marchand, b. 1675, bibliographer
At Leyden since 1756.

Marchianensis, Marchiennes, Fr. Now at Douai.

Marcianus, (1) Library of S. Mark, Venice, founded by Cardinal
Bessarion in 1468. (Gk., A. M. Zanetti and A. Bongiovanni, 1740 ;
Castellani, 1896. Lat., J. Valentinelli, 1868-1873.) Cf. Nanianus.

᾿ (2) Library of 5. Mark at Florence, founded by Cosimo de’ Medici
in 1157. (3) Jan van der Mark or Merk (cf. Cat. “πὸ. MSS. Brit.
Mus. i. 15). He collected MSS. at the beginning of the 18th cent.
and purchased those of J. de Witt, a jurist of Amsterdam.

Maros-Vasarhely, Hung. Private library of the Teleky family.

Martini Turonensis, S. Martin at Tours, Fr.

Martinsberg (Martisburgum, Marsipolis), 5. v. Pannonhalma.

Martisburgensis, Merseburg, Germ. Cathedral Library. Some
MSS. from here are in the Stadtbibl., Leipzig.

Massiliensis (Massilia), Marseille, Fr. (Albanés*.)

Matritensis (Matritum, Madritum), Madrid, Sp. (1) Bibl. Nacional,
containing MSS. of Const. Lascaris and Merula. (J. Iriarte, 1769;
Haenel, pp. 965-74; E. Miller, 1884.) (2) University Library. (Villa
Amil y Castro, 1878.) (3) Real Bibl., the private library of the King
in the Palacio de la Plaza de Oriente, founded in 1714. MSS.
mostly from the suppressed Colegios Mayores of Salamanca. (C.
Graux et A. Martin, Mss. grecs d’Espagne et de Portugal, 1892 ;
Catalogue by R. Menéndez Pidal, 1898.) Cf. Covarrubias. (4) The
library of the Real Academia de la Historia contains MSS. from the

328 NOMENCLATURE

monasteries of S. Millan de la Cogolla, S. Pedro de Cardefa, and
from Jesuit houses in Madrid.

Matthaei, Christian Friedrich (1744-1811), German scholar, Professor
of Classics at Moscow, 1778-1784, returned to the post after an
absence in Germany and held it from 1804-1811. His large
collection of Gk. MSS., many of which were stolen from libraries in
Moscow, was dispersed by him during his lifetime either as gifts
to friends such as Heyne and Ruhnken or sold to the libraries of
Leyden and Dresden. (O. von Gebhardt, ‘C. F. M. und seine Samm-
lung gr. Hdsch., Zentralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen, vol. xv, 1898.)

Maugérard, Jean-Baptiste (1735-1815), a Benedictine of the congrega-
tion of 5. Vanne. After the Revolution he fled to Germany, where
he dealt in MSS. stolen from public libraries. (L. Traube and
R. Ehwald, 1904.)

Mazarinensis, -aeus, MSS. of Cardinal Mazarin, many of which
came from the collections of Peiresc, du Tillet, Naudé, and Petau.
(L. Delisle, Cabinet, i, p. 279.) Now in Bibl. Nat., Paris. For MSS.
of the present Bibl. Maz. v. A. Molinier, 1885.

Meadensis, Meadianus, Meadinus, MSS. of Richard Mead, a London
physician (1673-1754), friend of Bentley. Somewere purchased by
Rawlinson and are in the Bodleian. Cf. Askevianus, Taylor.

Medianum in Vosago, Moyenmoutier, Fr. At Epinal and Nancy.

Mediceus, (1) 5. v. Laurentianus. (2) Collection of Catherine de’ Medici
added to the Bibl. Roy. Paris in 1599, often cited as Medicei Regii.
Cf. Ridolfianus.

Mediolanensis (Mediolanum), Milan, It., v. Ambrosianus. Brera,
Capitolo Metropolitano, Trivulziana. Cf. I. Ghiron, Byblioteche e
archivi, 1881.

Mediomatricensis (urbs Mediomatrica), Metz, Germ. The Stadtbibl.
contains some Saibante MSS. (Quicherat *), MSS. from the
Cathedral were presented to Colbert circ. 1676 and are now at Paris.

Mediomontanus, Middlehill, Worcestershire, Eng. s.v. Phillippsianus.

Meerman, Gerard (1722-1771), and his son Jan (1753-1815). Their
collection was purchased in 1824 by the Bodleian and by Sir Thomas
Phillipps, whose share was purchased by the Berlin Library in
1889 (?). Cf. Claromontanus. (Madan, Swmmary Catalogue, p. 433.)

Meersburg, s. v. Carolsruhensis.

Meldensis (Meldae), Meaux, Fr. Sometimes used for MSS. of du
Tillet, Bp. of Meaux, d.1570. Cf. Tilianus.

Melitensis (Melita), Malta. (C. Vasallo, 1856.)

Mellicensis, Melk, Austr. (Ca/alogus, vol. i, Vienna, 1889.)

Memmianus, Henri de Mesmes (1532-1596), French diplomatist.
His son Jacques died in 1642. Their collection was dispersed at
the end of the 17th cent. and the greater part was purchased

ἐλ ων Rie hes) .:

OF MANUSCRIPTS 329

for the Bibl. Roy. Paris in 1731. A few in the Bodleian
(Selden).

Menagianus, Aegidius Menagius (Gilles Ménage) (1613-1692), French
jurist and scholar, left his library to the Jesuits of S. Louis, Paris.
Menckenianus, MSS. of Otto Mencke (1644-1707) and his son Johann
Burchard M. (1645-1732), both scholars at Leipzig. The son was

author of the well-known Gelehrten-Lexvicon. MSS. dispersed.

Mendoza, (1) Diego (Didacus) Hurtado de Mendoza (1503-1575), Mar-
quis of Mondejar and Count of Tendilla, ambassador of Charles V
at Rome. He made a collection of Gk. MSS. at Venice which
was added to the Escurial Library in 1576. (E. Miller, Ca/alogue des
Mss. grecs de ?Escurial, pp. iii-iv: Fesanmair, D. H. de Mendoza,
Munich, 1882.) (2) Francisco de Mendoza y Bobadilla (1508-1566),
Cardinal of Burgos. At Madrid.

Mentelianus, Jacques Mentel, physician at Paris. His library was
incorporated with the Royal Library, Paris, in 1669.

Merseburg, s. v. Martisburgensis.

Merula, Georgius, of Alexandria della Paglia, near Milan; taught in
Venice and Milan, d. 1494. MSS. in Ambrosian and at Madrid.

Messanius, Messanicus (Messana), Messina, Sicily. Contained Gk.
MSS. from the Monastery of S.Salvadore and S. Placidus. Destroyed
by earthquake 28 Dec., 1908.

Metellianus, Jean Matal (1520-1597), of Cologne, jurist, a friend of
Griiter. He owned a MS. of Cicero collated by J. Gulielmus.

Meteora, monastery of, Greece. Many: MSS. were removed to
Athens. For those still at Meteora v. J. Draseke, Die neuen Hand-
schriftenfunde in den M.-Klostern, in N. Jahrbticher f. kl. Alt. 1912,
PP- 542 546:

Mettensis, Metten, Germ. At Munich. Also used for Mediomatricensis.

Miciacensis, S. Mesmin(S. Maximinus) de Micy or My, near Orléans, Fr.

Middlehillensis, s. v. Phillippsianus.

Milich, J. G., advocate of Schweidnitz, left his library to Gérlitz in
1726. 5. ν. Gorlicensis.

Millard, library at Troyes, Fr.

Miller, Emmanuel (1812-1886), assistant in the Department of
MSS. in the Bibl. Nat. Paris from 1833-1850 and Bibliothécaire de
?Assemblée Nationale till 1880. Travelled widely in Europe and in
the near East. His collection of MSS. is now for the most part in
the Bibl. Nat. Paris. (Omont, 1897.)

Minas, Menoides (1790-1860), a Greek employed by the Bibl. Nat.
Paris to search for MSS. in Greece.

Mindensis, Minden, Germ.

Minerviensis, S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. ν. Casanatensis.

Minoraugiensis (Augia minor), Mindarau, Germ.

330 NOMENCLATURE

Modius, Franciscus (? de Maulde), 1556-1597, of Oudenbourg, near
Bruges, Belg. Trained for the law, but devoted his life to work
upon classical MSS. in various libraries. (Life by P. Lehmann,
1907.)

Modoetiensis (Modoetia), Monza, It.

Moguntinus (Moguntia), Mainz, Germ. The library of the church —

of S. Martin, now dispersed. (F. Falk, Zentralblatt fiir Bibl. 1897,
Beiheft xviii.) :

Monacensis (Monachium), Munich, Germ. (1) University Library, —
founded 1472. (2)K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek (Gk. MSS., Hardt
1806-1812; Lat., Halm and others), founded by Albrecht V of
Bavaria (1550-1579). Contains the collections of Schedel and —
J. J. Fugger (1575). The main divisions of the library
are (1) the old Bibliotheca electoralis ; (2) the Codices Augustani,
transferred to Munich from the Augsburg Library in 1806; (3) MSS.
added during roth cent. chiefly from the surrounding monasteries.

Monasteriensis (Monasterium), Miinster, Germ. Bibl. Paulina
founded 1588. (J. Staender, 1889.) Includes the Bibliotheca
Fiirstenbergica of Franz Egon v. F. added in 1795.

Mon. Aug., Monasterium S. Augustini at Munich. MSS. at Munich. ~

Moneus, MS. of Plin. H. N. found in 1853 by Fridegar Mone (1796-
1851) at S. Paul in the Lavant-Thal, Carinthia.

Monspeliensis, s. v. Montepessulanus.

Montalbanius, Ovidius Montalbanius (Montalbani), physician and ~
Professor of Philosophy at Bologna circ. 1640. Friend of N. Heinsius.

Montchal, Charles de, Abp. of Toulouse, d. 1651. MSS. purchased by
Nicolas Foucquet, surintendant des finances, after whose disgrace, in
1661, they passed to Le Tellier (s.v. Tellerianus), who presented
his collections to the Royal Library, Paris, in 1700. (L. Delisle,
Cabinet, i. 273.)

Montensis, Mons, Belg.

Montepessulanus (Mons Pessulanus), Montpellier, Fr. Contains
codd. of Bouhier and Pithou. (Libri*.)

Montepolitianus (Mons Politianus), Montepulciano, It. The Domini-
can library once here became part of the Magliabecchiana (q. v.).
Monteprandone, It. MSS. of S. Giacomo della Marca. (A. Crivelucci,

1889.)

More, John (1646-1714), Bp. of Norwich, afterwards of Ely. His
library was purchased by George I and presented to the University
of Cambridge. 5.ν. Eliensis.

Morelii codices, MSS. used by Gul. Morelius (Tilianus), who published
a commentary on Cic. De Finibus at Paris in 1546.

Moretanus, Balthasar Moret of Antwerp, grandson of Plantin the
printer, d. 1641. MSS, at Antwerp.

OF MANUSCRIPTS aa

Mospurgensis (Mospurgum), Moosburg, Germ. At Munich.

Mosquensis, Moscuensis (Mosqua, Moscua, Moscovia), Moscow, Russ.
(α) University Library. (Reuss, 1831.) (2) Library of the Synod.
(C. F. Matthei, 1780; Vladimir, 1894.) (3) Bibliotheca Tabularii
imperialis (Arkhiv Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del, or Imperial
Record Office), containing library of Macedonian abbot Dionysios
given in 1690. (Bélokurov. Cf. O. von Gebhart, Zentralblatt f. Bibl.

Xv. 1898.)

Moysiacensis (Moysiacum, Musciacum), Moissac, Fr. At Paris
(Colbert's collection).

Murbacensis, Murbach, Alsace. (A. Gatrio, 1895.) Some Gk. MSS.
now at Gotha. Catalogues of the MSS. in the Benedictine monas-
tery there in 15th cent. are given by Zarncke, Philologus, 1890, p. 616.

Musciacensis, s.v. Moys-.

Museum Britannicum, s. v. Londiniensis.

Mussipontanum Collegium, Jesuit College at Pont-a-Mousson, Fr.
MSS. at Florence (Laurentian).

Mutinensis (Mutina), Modena, It. Bibl. Estense (q. v.).

Mynas, s.v. Minas.

N

Namnetensis (Namnetae, urbs Nannetum), Nantes, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Namurcensis (Namurcum), Namur, Belg.

Nan(n)ianus, (1) MSS. (mostly from the Greek islands) belonging to the
Nani family of Venice (6. g. Joh. Bapt. Nani, 1616-1678, a diplomatist).
Now in the Marciana, Venice. (Lat. codd., J. Morellius, 1776. Gk.
codd., Mingarelli, 1784.) (2) Pieter Nanninck (1500-1557) of Alkmaar,
Professor of Latin in the Collegium trium linguarum at Louvain in
1539-

Nansianus, Franciscus Nansius, d. 1595, of Isemberg in Flanders ;
Professor of Greek in Dordrecht ; owner of MSS. of the Agrimen-
sores now lost.

Nantes, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Naudé, Gabriel, librarian to de Mesmes (Memmianus), Queen Christina,
and others, d. 1653. His MSS. were purchased by Mazarin and are
now in the Bibl. Nat. Paris.

Naulotianus, Claude Naulot Duval of Avallon, Fr. (crc. 1573), acquired
among others the MSS. belonging to Pélicier (q.v.). His collection
was at the Jesuit College of Clermont, Paris, till the dispersal in 1764.
s. v. Claromontanus (1).

Navarricus, the Collegium Navarricum at Paris. MSS. in Bibl. Nat.
Paris. (L. Delisle, Cabinet, ii, p. 252.)

Nazarianus, S. Nazarius, Lorsch, Germ. Many now in the Vatican
(Palatini).

332 NOMENCLATURE

Neapolitanus, Naples, It. (1) Bibl. Nazionale. This library was
founded in Rome by Alessandro Farnese (Pope Paul III, 1534-1549).
It was ultimately transferred to Naples and united with the Biblio-
theca Palatina of Ferdinand II in 1804 under the name of the
Bibliotheca Borbonica. MSS. of the Farnese family, of Ianus
Parrhasius, and from S. Giovanni a Carbonara and Bobbio, ef. Seri-
pando. (Gk., S. Cyrillo, 1826-1832: Lat., Cataldo Jannelli, 1827;
supplement by G. Jorio, Leipzig, 1892.) (2) Brancacciana (s.v.).
(3) dei Girolamini (Oratorians). MSS. of Acquaviva and Valletta.
(Gk. MSS., E. Martini, 1896: general, E. Mandarini, 1897.) (4)
University.

The great library of the Aragonese kings of Naples was founded
by Alphonso I (1435-1458). After the campaign of 1495 Charles
VIII brought some MSS. to Blois. Frederic III] sold the remainder
circ, 1501 to the Cardinal d’Amboise, whose library in the Chateau de
Gaillon was neglected and plundered in the 16th cent. Many MSS.
from it have reached the Bibl. Nat. Paris with the collections of de
Thou, Hurault, Séguier, and others. The remnants of the collection
at Gaillon were incorporated with the Royal Library in the Louvre

νῶν ον

under Henry IV. (1,. Delisle, Cabinet, i. 217-259: G. Mazzatinti,

1897.)

Nemausensis (Nemausus), Nimes, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Neustetter, Erasmus, of Schénfeld (1525-1594), successively Dean and
Provost of the Abbey of Komburg and founder of the library there,

Nicolianus, MSS. belonging to or copied by the Florentine scholar,
Niccolo de Nicoli (1363-1437), a pupil of Chrysoloras. MSS. now
in the Laurentian.

Niederaltacensis, Niederaltaich, Germ. At Munich.

Nienburgensis, Nienburg an der Saale, Germ. Some at Dessau.

Nilant, a collection of Latin Fables known by the name of the
Anonymus Nilanti, published by J. F. Nilant, Leyden, 1709.

Nitriensis, monastery of S. Maria Deipara in the Nitrian desert.

Niwenburgensis, Klosterneuburg, Austr. MSS. from S. Nicola, Passau.

Nomsianus, a MS. of Prudentius (? called after some former owner, e.g.
Nomsz) lent by Isaac Voss to N. Heinsius for his edition of 1667.

Nonantulanus, the Benedictine monastery of S. Sylvester at Nonan-
tula, near Modena, It. Transferred to the Sessoriana (q.v.) and now
in the Vittorio Emanuele, Rome.

Norfolkianus, s. v. Arundelianus.

Noricus, a name sometimes used for MSS. in Bavarian libraries or
owned by Bavarians.

Norimbergensis (Norimberga), Nuremberg, Germ. (C. T. v. Murr,
Memorabilia bibl. publ. Norimbergensium, 1791; Mammerts, MMts-
cellanea, 1895.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 333

Norvicensis. The MSS. of John More, Bp. of Norwich, afterwards of
Ely. s.v. More.

Nostradamensis, Notre-Dame, Paris. In the Bibl. Nat. since 1756
(L. Delisle, 1871) and in Sorbonne. Cf. Avicula.

Novaliciensis (Novalicia), Novalese, near Mt. Cenis, It. (Blume,
Iter Ital., iv. 128.)

Novariensis, Novara, It.

Novum Monasterium, Neumiinster, Germ.

Nyracensis (Nyrax), Niort, Fr. (Martin and Chotard*.)

O

Oberaltacensis, Oberaltaich, Germ. (Altaha Superior). Nowat Munich.

Oberlinianus, Jérémie Jacques Oberlin, of Strassburg, scholar (1735-
1806). Strassburg MSS, quoted by him are sometimes cited as
Oberliniani.

Occo, Adolphus (1524-1605), German physician and antiquary. MSS.
at Munich and Zirich.

Oenipontanus (Oenipons), Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austr. University
Library. (Cat. 1792; Cat. of Law MSS. 1904.)

Oiselanus, s. v. Avicula.

Oiselianus, MSS. (e. g. Lucan) of Jac. Oiselius (1631-1686), jurist, Pro-
fessor of Law at Groningen, 1667. (Catalogue, Leyden, 1688.)

Olisiponensis (Olisipo), Lisbon, Portugal. (Index cod. bibl, Alco-
batiae, 1775.) Cf. Alcobacensis.

Oliveriana, 5. ν. Pisaurensis.

Olivetanus, monastery at Naples (Monachi S. Mariae Montis Oliveti).
MSS. dispersed.

Olomucenis (Olomucium, Olomuncia), Olmiitz, Austr. K.-K. Studien-
bibliothek. (E. Gollob, Verzeichnis, 1903, p. 90.)

Opathovicensis, Opatowic, Russian Poland.

Oratorianus, (1) s.v. Vallicellianus. (2) s.v. Neapolitanus (2).

Orielensis, Oriel College, Oxford.

Orsini, (1) Fulvio O., s.v. Ursinianus. (2) Cardinal Giordano Ursini,
d. 1439. MSS. in S. Peter’s, Rome. s. v. Basilicanus (1).

Ortelianus, Veit Ortel (1501-1570), born at Winsheim and hence
known as Vitus Winshemius; Professor of Greek at Wittenberg
and Jena.

Ossecensis (Ossecense monasterium), Ossegg, Bohemia. (Xenia
Bernardina, I1-111.)

Ossoliniana, library at Lemberg (s. v. Leopoliensis).

Ottobonianus, MSS. of the Ottoboni family (e.g. Alexander VII1)incor-.
porated with the Vatican in 1746 by Benedict XIV. Cf. s.v. Altaemp-
sianus, The collection contains afew of the MSS. belonging to

334 NOMENCLATURE

Christina of Sweden. Cf. Reginenses. (E. Feron and F. Battaglini,
1893.)

Ottoburanus, monastery at Ottobeuren, Bavaria, Germ. "

Oudendorpianus, Franz von Oudendorp (1696-1761), Professor at
Leyden. MSS. left to the library at Leyden by his son Cornelius in
1790.

Ovetensis (Ovetum), Oviedo, Sp. Some MSS. belonging to the
Cathedral of San Salvador are now in the Escurial.

Oxoniensis (Oxonia, Oxonium), Oxford, Eng. (1) s.v. Bodleianus,
(2) College libraries. (H. O. Coxe, Cat. codd. MSS. qui in collegiis —
aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie asservantur, 2 vols., 1852. Vol. i contains
the MSS. of: University*, Balliol, Merton, Exeter, Oriel, Queen's,
New College, and Lincoln*; vol. ii those of: All Souls (Omnium
Animarum), Magdalen, Brasenose (Aenei Nasi)*, Corpus Christi,
Trinity, S. John’s, Jesus*, Wadham, Worcester (Wigorniensis),
S. Mary’s Hall (now in Oriel). The MSS. of the colleges marked
with an asterisk are deposited in the Bodleian. The MSS. ot
Christ Church (Aedes Christi) are catalogued separately by G. W.
Kitchin, 1867.

P

Pacius, (1) Juan Paez de Castro, a Spanish collector, d. 1570. His MSS.
were acquired for the Escurial by Philip II and perished by fire in
1671. (Graux.) (2) Julius Pacius de Beriga, b. at Vicenza, 1550, d.
at Valence, Fr., 1635; Professor of Civil Law at Montpellier, Aix,
Valence, Padua. His collection of MSS. was purchased by Peirese
(q.v.). (Omont, Annales du Midi, 1891, vol. iii.) Some of the MSS.
were given by Peiresc to Holstenius (q.v.), and were given by him to
Hamburg, where they are now in the Johanneum.

Padolironensis, Polirone,It. MSS. of S. Benedetto di Polirone are now
at Mantua.

Palatinus, the Palatine Library at Heidelberg, was founded by the
Elector Philip (1476-1508). The collection was increased by the
addition of the MSS. of Rudolph Agricola (who had helped to form it)
and of his friend Johann Dalberg, Bp. of Worms, d. 1503, who had
acquired for his library at Ladenburg MSS. from the monastery of
Lorsch (5. ν. Laureacensis). In 1584 it was enriched by the col-
lection of Ulrich Fugger. After the capture of Heidelberg by Tilly
in the Thirty Years’ War (1622) the MSS. in the library were pre-
sented to the Vatican (1623) by the Emperor Maximilian. Thirty-
eight of them were transferred from Rome to Paris by Napoleon
after the Treaty of Tolentino (1797), These were restored to
Heidelberg in 1816, with the consent of Pius VII. (History by

OF MANUSCRIPTS 335

Wilken, Heidelberg, 1817; Catalogues of the Palatini Vaticani: Gk.
MSS. by H. Stevenson, senior, Rome, 1885; Lat. MSS.,H. Stevenson,
junior, and J. B. de Rossi, 1886.)

Palatino-Florentinus, Palatine MSS. in the Bibl. Nazionale, Florence
(s.v. Florentinus).

Palatino-Lucensis, Palatine library at Lucca, It., part transferred in
1847 to Parma.

Palatino-Mannheimensis, Bibl. Palatina at Mannheim, Germ. MSS.
at Munich.

Palatino-Parmensis, Bib]. Palatina at Parma, It.

Palatino-Vindobonensis, Bibl. Palatina at Vienna.

Pampelonensis, Pampelona, Sp.

Pannonhalma (Monasterium S. Martini supra montem Pannoniae).
Martinsberg, Hungary. (V. Récsey, 1901.)

Pannonius, Janus, Bp. of Fiinfkirchen, Hungary, circ. 1508. MSS. at
Budapest.

Panormitanus (Panormus), Palermo, Sicily. (1) Bibl. Nazionale.
(E. Martini, 1893 ; Gk., A. Pennino, 1883.) (2) Bibl. Comunale. (Rossi,
1873.)

Pantin, Pierre (circ. 1556-1611), of Louvain, Belg., pupil οἱ André
Schott (q.v.), whom he succeeded as Professor of Greek at Toledo
and to whom he bequeathed his collection of Gk. MSS. s.v.
Covarruvianus.

Papenbroek, Papenbrochius, MSS. of G. Papenbroek left to the
Leyden Library in 1743.

Papiensis (Papia), Pavia, It. (L. de Marchi and Ὁ. Bertolani, 1894).
The Visconti collection is now in Paris (Delisle, Cabinet des mss.
i, p. 133), having been appropriated by Louis XII circ. 1500.

Parcensis, the Abbaye du Parc, a Premonstratensian monastery near
Louvain, Belg., dissolved during the Revolution and revived in 1836.
(Catalogue of library in 1635 in Sanderus, Bzb/. Belg.)

Pareus, Philipp Waengler (1576-1648), editor of Plautus, 1610.

Parhamensis, the collection of Robert Curzon (1810-1873), afterwards
Baron Zouche, now at Parham Park, Sussex.

Parisinus, Parisiensis (Parisii', Paris.

(x) Bibl. Nationale. Cf. p. 289. Regii (Catalogue, 1739-1744) ;
Ashburnham-Barrois, (Omont, 1902) ; Libri-Barrois (Delisle, 1888) ;
Miller (Omont, 1897). The history of the various collections is
given in L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibliotheque Nationale,
3 vols., Paris, 1868-1881. Among the chief collections are (+ signi-
fies some of the original sources) :—Baluziani (+ Salmasiani) added
in 1719, Bigotiani 1706, Boheriani 1804, Colbertini (+ Fuxenses,
Moissac, Thuanei) 1732, Foucaultiani 1728, Foucquet (+ Montchal)
1667, Gaigniéres 1715, Mazarinaei (+ Peiresc, du Tillet, Naudé,

336 NOMENCLATURE

A. Petau) 1668, Memmiani 1731, Puteanei 1754, S. Martial 1730,
Sangermanenses (+ Fossatenses, Coisliniani, Harley, Corbeienses)
1795. (2) Bibl. de l’Arsenal. (Martin, 1885.) MSS. from Flavigny,
Lyon (Augustinians), S. Victor. (3) Bibl. S. Geneviéve, founded
1624. (C. Kohler, 1893.) (4) Bibl. Mazarine, founded 1643,
(A. Molinier, 1885-1893.) (5) Bibl. de l'Université, Sorbonne.
(E. Chatelain, 1885.)

An account of the ancient libraries in Paris will be found in
A. Franklin, Les anciennes bibliothéques de Paris, 1870.

Parker, Matthew (1504-1575), Abp. of Canterbury. MSS., with the
exception of a few given to the University Library, are at Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge. (M. R. James.)

Parmensis (Parma), Parma, It. Bibl. Palatina. (Gk., E. Martini, 1893.)
Cf. Lucensis.

Parrhasianus, Aulus [anus Parrhasius (Aulo Giano Parrasio), 1470-
1534, Neapolitan humanist. Cf. Bobiensis.

Pasquinianus, Pasquino de’ Cappelli, Chancellor at Milan under
Giangaleazzo circ. 1389.

Passau, s. v. Pataviensis.

Passioneus, Cardinal Domenico Passionei (1682-1761), Librarian
at the Vatican. After his death, his library was purchased for the
Angelica (4. v.). It is said to contain MSS. from S. Gall. (Cf. Histoire
del’ Acad. Royale des Insc. et Belles- Lettres, XXXi, Pp. 331, 1767.)

Pataviensis (Patavia, Passavium), Passau, Germ. Some MSS. at
Munich. Those from S. Nicola at Klosterneuburg.

Patavinus (Patavium), Padua, It. (1) Bibl. Antoniana. (A. M. Josa,
1886.) (2) Capitular Library. (Scarabello, 1839.) (3) University
Library. (J. Tomasini, 1639; C. Landi, Studi [¢., 1902.) (4) Bibl. del
Seminario Vescovile. MSS. from the Jesuit College are at Turin.

Paterniacensis (Paterniacum), Payerne or Peterlingen, Switz. There
was formerly a Cluniac House here whose MSS. are now dispersed
(some e.g. at Schlettstadt).

Patiriensis, Basilian monastery of S. Maria del Patire, S. Italy. MSS.
in Vatican.

Patmi(ac)us, monastery of S. John Theologus, Patmos,Gr. (Sakkelion,
1890; Decharme and Petit de Julleville.)

Paulina, (1) library at Miinster, Germ. (2) The old name of the
Library of the Dominicans at Leipzig, founded 1229, suppressed in
1540. Monastery (the Paulinum) and library were transferred to the
University, Leipzig.

Pavia, s. v. Papiensis.

Pegaviensis, s. v. Pig-.

Peirescianus, Nicolas Claude Fabri Seigneur de Peirese (1580-
1637), a French bibliophile and antiquary. His MSS. he left with

OF MANUSCRIPTS 337

his other property to his brother Palaméde Fabri (de Valavez), whose
son Claude Fabri, Baron de Rians, sold them in 1647-1648. They can
usually be recognized by the monogram N. K. Φ. (sometimes Φ
alone) which they bear. A certain number were bought by
G. Naudé and have passed through the Mazarin collection to the
Bibl. Nat. Paris, There are afew at Carpentras. He presented many
MSS. during his lifetime to friends such as Scaliger, Holstenius,
Salmasius. (Cf. L. Delisle, Un grand amateur francats, 1889; Ch.
Joret, 1894, and s. ν. Pacius.)

Peletier, Le, s. v. Rosanbinus.

Pelicerianus, Guillaume Pélicier, Abp. of Montpellier, 1529-1568.
Part of his collection passed to the Bibl. Roy. Paris, part to Claude
Naulot (q.v.) and through him to the Jesuit College of Clermont,
Paris, The Clermont MSS. are now in the Royal Library, Berlin.
(R. Forster, Rh. Museum, 1885, xl, pp. 453-61.)

Peltiscensis, s. v. Polotiensis.

Peniscola, the Papal library at Pefiiscola, Sp. Part of it is now
included in the Foix collection in the Bibl, Nat. Paris (Fuxenses).

Perizonianus, Jacob Voorbroek (Perizonius), 1657-1715, Professor οἱ
Greek at Leyden. MSS. bought in 1715 for the library at Leyden.

Perottus (Perotti), Nicolaus (1430-1480), papal secretary, scholar, and
Abp. of Manfredonia. MSS. at Naples and in Vatican.

Perpenianensis (Perpenianum), Perpignan, Fr, (Cadier*.)

Perrenot, s. v. Granvella.

Perusinus, (1) Perugia, It. Bibl. Comunale. (T. W. Allen, Zeztralbl. f.
Bibl. 1893, x. 470.) (2) 5. Pierre de Pérouse, Fr.

Pestinensis (Pestinum), Budapest, Hungary. s.v. Budensis.

Petavianus, Paul Petau, 1568-1614, French jurist and antiquary, cousin
of Bongars. Part of his collection of MSS. was sold. by his son
Alexandre to Queen Christina of Sweden and is now in the Vatican ;
part was sold to Lullin and is now at Geneva. Many of his MSS.
came from S. Benoit-sur-Loire (Fleury).

Petrensis, Peterhouse, Cambridge.

Petriburgensis, S. Petersburg, Russia. (1) Imperial Library. (E. de
Muralt, 1840, 1864.) MSS. of Uspensky and from S. Germain-des-
Prés and Sinai. Cf. also Zaluski, Dubrovski, Sukhtelen, Polotzk,
Varsoviensis. (2) Libr. of the Academy. (Tichanov, 1881.) (3) Her-
mitage. (4) University. (5) Eccl. Academy, (A. Rodosski, 1894.)

Petrinus, s. vv. Basilicanus, Miinster.

Petripolitanus, 5. v. Petriburgensis.

Petrucci, Antonello de’, died 1487, minister of Ferdinand I of Naples,
His MSS. had become part of the Aragonese Royal Library at Naples
and were brought to France by Charles VIII in 1495. Now at Paris.

Peutingerianus, Conrad Peutinger (1465-1547), patrician of Augsburg,

473 2

333 NOMENCLATURE

jurist and antiquary, friend of Luther. Conrad Celtes bequeathed
to him the ancient Itinerarium discovered at Speyer, since known as
the Tabula Peutingeriana and now in the Imperial Library, Vienne
The fragment of Cic. Pro Flacco called the Frag. Peutingerianum is
only known from Cratander’s edition.
Phanarianus, the library of the Patriarch in the Phanar or old Greek
quarter of Constantinople.
Philelphus, Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481), Italian humanist. MSS. in
Laurentian, Vatican, Paris, Leyden, Wolfenbiittel.
Phillippsianus, Phillippicus: the collection made by Sir Thomas
Phillipps (1792-1872), antiquary and bibliophile, of Middle Hill,
Worcestershire (hence the MSS. are cited in the older classical
works as Mediomontani). His most important purchase of classical
MSS. was the large portion of the Meerman collection (s.v.) which he
secured in 1824. In 1862 the library was removed to Thirlstane
House, Cheltenham, where some valuable MSS. are still pre-
served. The remainder have been dispersed at various sales since
1890. The German government purchased the Meerman MSS.,
which are now at Berlin. (Cat. Librorum MSS. in Bibl. Phillippica
1824~? 1867 ; Meermaniani Graeci in Studemund and Cohn, 1899.)

Phorcensis (Phorca), Pforzheim, Germ. 5. ν. Carolsruhensis.

Picciolpassus, Francesco Pizzolpasso, Abp. of Milan, 1435-1443. His
collection of MSS. is now in the Ambrosian. (R. Sabbadini, Le
Scoperte, p. 120.)

Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius, Pope Pius II, 1405-1464. MSS. at
Siena and in Vatican, v. Sandys, Οἱ, Rev., 1903, p. 461. .

Pictaviensis (Pictavia), Poitiers, Fr. (Molinier and Lievre*.)

Pierpont Morgan, J., purchased MSS. from Ashburnham and Morris
collections. (Cat. 1906.)

Pigaviensis, Pegau, Germ. MSS. of S. Jakob at Pegau, now in
University Library, Leipzig.

Pighianus, Stephen Vinand Pighe (1520-1604) of Kampen, Holland,
Secretary to Cardinal Granvella. A collection of drawings of
ancient monuments made by him is known as the ‘codex Pighianus’

Pilar, library at Saragossa, Sp.

Pincianus, s. v. Salmanticensis.

Pinellianus, Gian Vincenzo Pinelli of Genoa, 1535-1601, friend of
Fulvio Orsini and Claude du Puy. His collection was purchased for
the Ambrosian library at Milan by Borromeo in 1608. (Cf. Blum
Lter Ital., i. 129-130.)

Pintianus, s. v. Salmanticensis.

Pinus, Joannes. Jean de Pins, Bp. of Rieux (1523-1537), ambassador
at Rome and Venice. MSS. acquired by Francis 1 for Fontainebleau
whence they have passed to Paris. ω.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 339

Pirkheimer, Willibald (1470-1530), Ratsherr at Nuremberg, scholar
and collector. Cf. Arundelianus.

Pirnensis, Pirna,Germ. Many MSS. in University Library, Leipzig.

Pisanus (Pisae), Pisa, It.

Pisaurensis (Pisaurum), Pesaro, It. Bibl. Oliveriana.

Pistoriensis (Pistorium), Pistoja, It. (1) Liceo Forteguerri. (Zaccaria,
Bibhioth. Pistor., 1752.) (2) Bibl. Fabroniana, founded by Cardinal
Carlo Agostino Fabroni in 1719.

Pithoeanus, Pierre Pithou (1539-1596), jurist and antiquary, and
Francois Pithou, his twin brother, Chancellor of the Parliament of
Paris, d. 1621, the discoverer of the MS. of Phaedrus. Their collection
is mainly at Troyes and Montpellier. Cf. Thuaneus, Rosanbinus.

Pius, (1) Pope Pius II, 5. ν. Piccolomini. (2) Albertus, Count of Carpi,
It., man of learning and diplomatist, 4. 1529. MSS. at Modena
(Estenses) and a few in the Ambrosian, Milan, and in Ottoboniana
(Vatican). (3) Ridolfo Pio (d. 1564), Cardinalis Carpensis. His
collection was dispersed after his death. Part came to the Vatican.

Placentinus (Placentia), Piacenza, It. (A. Balsamo, Sua 11., 1899.)

- Cf. Landianus.

Plantinianus, Christophe Plantin (1514-1589), printer at Antwerp.
His business as printer was carried on by J. Moretus, who married
his second daughter, and by their descendants. The Museum
belonging to the firm was purchased by the City of Antwerp in
1877. (H.Stein, Les Mss. du Musee Plantin-Moretus, 1886.)

Podianus, Prospero Podiani (d. 1615), a jurist of Perugia. MSS. in
Vatican. (Carini, δι δί. Vat., p. 77.)

Podiensis, Du Puy, Fr. Bought by Colbert and nowat Paris. (Delisle,
Cabinet, i. 517.)

Poggianus, Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) of Florence, Papal
secretary and humanist.

Pollingensis, Pollingen, Germ. At Munich.

Polotiensis (Polotium, Peltiscum), Polotzk, Russia. MSS. of the
Jesuit Academy were acquired for the Imperial Library, 5.
Petersburg, in 1831.

Pommersfelden, Grafl. Schérnborn-Wiessentheid’sche Bibl. in the
Castle of Weissenstein. Founded by Lothar v. Schén. Abp. of
Mainz and Bp. of Bamberg, d. 1729. Contains MSS.. from
Gaibach, Rebdorf, Erfurt. (P. Schwenke, Adressbuch, 5. v.)

Pontanus, Giovanni Gioviano Pontano (1426-1503), poet and _his-
torian, Secretary to Alfonso of Naples.

Pontiniacensis (Pontiniacum), Pontigny, Fr. MSS. now at Au erre
and Montpellier. =

Porfirianus, s.v. Uspenskyanus.

Portensis, Schulpforta, Germ.

2

340 NOMENCLATURE

Posnaniensis (Posnania), Posen, Germ. Bibl, Raczynski, (Sosnow-
ski, 1885.) .

Posoniensis (Posonium), Pressburg, Hungary. Appony Library,
founded 1825.

Posthius, Joannes (1537-1597), German physician of Wirzburg and
owner of MSS, (Cf. P. Lehmann, Franciscus Modius, p. 136.)

Praemonstratensis, Prémontré, in the Forest of Coucy near Rheims,
Fr. It was the centre of the Premonstratensian or Norbertine
order founded by Norbert in 1119. Some MSS, formerly here are
now at Soissons.

Pragensis (Praga), Prag, Bohemia. (1) University Library. (J. Kelle,
1872; Lat., J. Truhlai, 1905.) (2) Premonstratensian monastery of
Strahov. (Weyrauch, 1858.)

Pratellensis, Préaux, Fr. At Paris.

Pratensis, s. v. S. Germani.

Pressburgensis, s.v. Posoniensis.

Probatopolitanus (Probatopolis, Scaphusum), Schaffhausen, Switz.
(Boos, 1877.)

Proustellianus, Guillaume Prousteau (1626-1715), jurist and bibliophile
of Orléans, Fr. He purchased the library of Valesius. His col-
lection is still at Orléans. (Catalogue, 1721 and 1777.)

Provin(i)ensis (Provinum), Provins, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Prumiensis, Priim, Germ. Monastery of S. Salvator.

Pulaviensis, Pulawy (now Nowa Alexandria) near Lyublin, in Russian
Poland. (Cf. Serapeum, vi. 48, xi. 333-)

Pulmannianus, MSS. owned or collated by Theodor Pulmann (cire.
1590), a scholar who published a number of works with Plantin of
Antwerp. Some are at Brussels.

Puteaneus or Puteanus, the brothers Pierre (d. 1651) and Jacques
Dupuy (d. 1656). They were placed in charge of the Bibl. Royale,
Paris, in 1645. They bequeathed to the library their collection of
MSS., many of which they had inherited from their father Claude
Dupuy (d. 1594).

Pyrkheimerianus, s.v. Pirkheimer.

Q
Quedlinburgensis, Quedlinburg near Halberstadt, Germ.
Queriniana, s. v. Brixianus.

R
Raczynskianus, Raczynski Library at Posen, Germ.
Radingensis (Radinga), Reading, England.

Radulphi, s. v. Ridolfianus.
Ragusa, Jolin of Ragusa in Dalmatia (de Ragusio), Cardinal and Bp,

Of MANUSCRIPTS 341

of Strassburg, d. 1443; left his collection of MSS. to the Dominicans
of Basel, Switz. Many of them are now in the library at Basel.
(Omont, Bibliotheques de Suisse.)

Rainerianus, collections of papyri made by Graf, Schweinfurth, and
others in the Royal Library, Vienna, now known under the title οἵ
‘Papyri of the Archduke Rainer’, who secured them for the library
in 1884. (J. Karabaéek and others, Vienna, 1892.)

Raitenhaslacensis, Raitenhaslach, Germ. At Munich.

Rastattensis, Rastatt, Germ. Castle of the Margraves of Baden. The
library once here is now at Karlsruhe (s. v. Carolsruhensis).

Ratisponensis (Ratispona, Regisburgicum), Ratisbon or Regensburg,
Germ. MSS.ofS.Emmeram, now at Munich.

Raudensis (Raudium, Rhaudium), Rho near Milan, It.

Raudnitzianus, Raudnitz, Austr., s.v. Lobcoviciensis.

Ravennas, Ravenna, It. Bibl. Classense (s. v.).

Ravianus, MSS. of Christianus Ravius (Raue), 1613-1677, Orientalist,
theologian, and traveller; lectured in England, Sweden, Germany ;
MSS. purchased by Queen Christina. In Vatican, s.v. Reginensis,
and at Berlin.

Rawlinson, MSS. left to the Bodleian by Richard Rawlinson (1689-
1755), nonjuror, collector of books and coins. (Madan, Summary
Car; iii..177.)

Rebdorfensis, Rebdorf, Germ. 5. v. Augustanus, Pommersfelden.

Recanatianus, Recanati, It. The cod. Recanatianus of Livy is now
Marcianus 364.

Redonensis (Urbs Redonum, Condate), Rennes, Fr. (Maillet, 1837;
Vetault*.)

Regalis mons, Royaumont, Fr.

Regiensis (Regium Iulii), Reggio (Emilia), It. The famous library
of the monastery of S. Spirito is now incorporated with the Bibl,
Municipale. (T. W. Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 13.)

Regimontanus (Regimontium), Kénigsberg, Germ. (A. Steffenhagen,
1861.)

Reginensis, library of Christina, Queen of Sweden (1626-1689), col-
lected for the most part by Isaac Vossius cre, 1650. The collection
included MSS. which had belonged to P. Daniel, P. and A. Petau
(5. ν. Petavianus and Floriacensis), part of the Goldast collection, and
many MSS. taken from German monasteries during the Thirty
Years’ War, She bequeathed it to Cardinal Azzolino, after whose
death it was purchased in 1689 by Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, who on
becoming pope, under the title of Alexander VIII, transferred most
of the MSS. to the Vatican, where they formed the Bibliotheca Alex-
andrina, The remaining MSS., about too in number, he kept in
his private collection, the Ottoboniana. This remained in the

342 NOMENCLATURE

possession of his family, till it was purchased circ. 1746 by Benedict
XIV and incorporated in the Vatican. A few books strayed from
the collection, e.g. Vat. lat. 7277, which came into the Vatican from
the library mY Garampi. (Gk. MSS., H. Stevenson, 1888.)

Regiomontanus, Royaumont, Fr.

Regius, (1) Bibliotheque Royale, now the Bibl. Nationale, Paris.
The MSS. retain the numbers of the Catalogue of 1682. (2) The
Royal Library in 5. James’s Palace, removed to the British Museum
in 1752. (3) King’s College, Cambridge. (4) King’s College, Aberdeen.

Rehdigeranus, Thomas von Rehdiger (1541-1576), collector and
scholar. His MSS. were kept in the church of S. Elizabeth at
Breslau till 1865, when they were added to the Stadtbibliothek.
(A. W. Wachler, 1828; Cal. Codd. Graecorum in Bibl. Urbica
Vratislav., 1889.)

Reichenaviensis (Augia dives or maior), Reichenau, near Constance,
Switz. The Monastery was secularized in 1803 and the MSS.
dispersed between Karlsruhe (Cat. by A. Holder, 1906), London,
Stuttgart, 5. Paul in Carinthia, and Ziirich.

Reinesius, Thomas (1587-1667), German physician and collector of
MSS. and antiquities. Cf. Cizensis.

Relandus, Adrian Reland (1676-1718), Dutch scholar,

Resbacensis, Rébais, monastery in diocese of Meaux, f. circ. 634 by
S. Ouen.

Reuchlin. s. v. Carolsruhensis.

Rheinaugiensis (Rheni Augia), Rheinau, Switz. MSS. at Ziirich.

R(h)emensis (Urbs Remorum), Reims, Fr. (H. Loriquet*.)

Rhenanus, Beatus (1485-1547), German scholar. MSS. at Schlettstadt.

Rheno-Trajectinus, s.v. Trajectinus.

Rhenoviensis, s. v. Rheinaug-.

Rhodigium, Rovigo, It. (Mazzatinti.)

Richenoviensis, s.v. Reichen-.

Riccardianus, s.v. Florentinus.

Richelianus, MSS. of Cardinal de Richelieu (1585-1642). Became
the property of the Sorbonne in 1660. Transferred with the
rest of the Sorbonne MSS. to the Bibl. Nat. Paris in 1796. Some
at Leyden. (Delisle, Cabinet, ii. 204.)

Ricomagensis (Ricomagus), Riom, Fr.

Ridolfianus, Cardinal Nicholas Ridolfi, nephew of Pope Leo X,
collected a famous library of MSS. with the aid of Ianus Lascaris
and others. His heirs in 1550 sold his collection to Marshal Piero
Strozzi, whose collection on his death in 1558 was seized by his
kinswoman Catherine de’ Medici, from whom it has passed to the
Bibl. Nat. Paris. (L. Delisle, Cabinet des manuscrits, i. 207.) A few
in London and Florence (Magliabecchiana and Riccardiana).

OF MANUSCRIPTS 343

Rivipullensis, Rivipollensis (Rivus Pollensis), Ripoll, Sp. Αἱ
Barcelona,

Rodigium, s.v. Rhodigium.

Rodomensis (Rodomum, Rotomagus), Rouen, Fr. MSS. from
5. Audoeni and Fontenelle. (Omont *.)

Rodulphianus, s. v. Ridolfianus.

Roe, Sir Thomas (1581 ?-1644), ambassador in Turkey, presented
some MSS. from the Barocci collection to the Bodleian in 1629.
ΠΕ Coxe; 1853.)

Roffensis (Roffa), Rochester, Eng. Some MSS. in the British
Museum.

Romanus (Roma), Rome, It. (1) Bibl. Alessandria, University
Library founded by Alexander VII in 1667. (2) Apostolica Vati-
cana, s.v. Vaticanus. (3) Bibl. Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Ema-
nuele (1876), contains MSS. from about sixty-three suppressed
monasteries. (4) Vallicelliana,s.v. (5) Angelica, s.v. (6) Casana-
tense, s.v. (7) Corsiniana, s.v. (8) Chigiana, s.v. (9) Barberi-
n(ian)a, s.v. (10) S. Pietro, s.v. Basilicanus. (11) Collegio Romano,
library of Jesuit College, part of Vittorio Emanuele.

Rosanbinus, Rosanboensis, the family of Le Peletier-Rosanbo ot
Rosanbo, Fr. Like their relatives the brothers Pithou they
collected MSS. in the 16th cent., which are still in the possession of
their descendants (e.g. Phaedrus, which belonged to F. Pithou).
(Omont, Cat. des Mss. gr. des Depart., p. 67.)

Rossanensis, Rossano, on Gulf of Tarentum, It. (L’abbave de R.,
by P. Battifol, 1891.) MSS. mostly in Vatican.

Rossianus, library founded by Commendatore Francesco Rossi,
d. 1854, second husband of Carola Ludovica of Bourbon, At Vienna
(Lainzerstrasse) since 1877. (Gk. MSS., Van de Vorst, Zentralbl.
fur Bibl., 1906.)

_Rostgardiana, library of Fr. Rostgaard, now part of the Royal
Library, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Rostochiensis (Rostochium), Rostock, Germ.

Rotomagensis, Rouen, Fr. s.v. Rodomensis.

Rottendorphianus, Bernhard Rottendorf, a physician ot Miinster,
Germ., circ. 1650. He was private physician for some time tothe Bp.
of Paderborn, Ferdinand von Fiirstenberg. Part of his collection of
MSS. was acquired by M. Gude (s.v. Gudianus) and is now at
Wolfenbiittel.

Rubea Vallis, Roodekloster, near Brussels, Belg.

Ruhnkenianus, MSS. of David Ruhnken, 1723-1798, at Leyden since
1799.

Rumiancevi Museum, Rumjanzow Museum, Moscow, Russia.

Rupefucaldi(n)us, Francois Albert, Seigneur de Rochefoucauld; a

344 NOMENCLATURE

learned Frenchman, Bp. of Clermont and Senlis, afterwards
cardinal; d. 1645. Some of his MSS. came into the possession
of the Jesuits of Clermont and thence into the Meerman collection
(q. v.).

Rylands, s.v. Mancuniensis.

5

Saba, (1) s.v. Hierosolymitanus. (2) Basilica of 5. Saba, Rome.

Sak baiticus, s.v. Saba (2).

Sabbioneta, MSS. of Vespasiano Gonzaga, Duke of Sabbioneta, near
Mantua (d. 1591). They were left to the Servites of Sabbioneta
and are stated by Blume, /éer Jtalicum, 1. 196, to have become the
property of the Comune. They cannot now be traced. (Cf. T. W. —
Allen, Odyssey, Oxford text, 1910, p. 5.)

Sagiensis (Sagium), S. Martin, Seez, Fr. At Alencon.

Saibantinus, the MSS. of a Veronese collector Giovanni Saibante, ot
which a catalogue is given by Montfaucon, δ δ]. Bibliothecarum,
Ῥ. 490. The collection came into the hands of another Veronese,
P. de’ Gianfilippi. In 1820 part of it was purchased for the
Bodleian; part was sold in Paris in 1821, and the remainder in
1843. MSS. from it are now at Paris, Oxford, Florence (Lauren-
tian), and Metz (Salis). (Cf. Omont, Zentralblatt fiir Bibl., 1891, in
an article on the MSS. at Verona.)

Salamantinus, Salmanticensis (Salmantica), Salamanca, Sp.
University Library. (Cat. de los libros mss., 1855; J. Ortiz, Brdi.
Salmantina, 1777.) Cf. s.v. Matritensis (3).

Salem, Germ. MSS. at Heidelberg, Germ.

Salis, collection at Metz, Germ. Includes part of Gianfilippi and
Saibante collections.

Salisburgensis (Salisburgum), Salzburg, Austr. (1) Library of
S. Peter. Some codd. formerly here are now at Munich and
Vienna. (2) Studien-Bibl. (K. Foltz, 1877.)

Salisburiensis (Salisburium), Salisbury, Eng. Cathedral Library.
(Thompson, 1882.)

Salmanticensis Pintiani, codd. of Pedro Nuftez de Guzman, 1471-
1552, called Pintianus from his birthplace Valladolid (Pintia or
Pincia Carpetanorum). He was Professor of Greek at Salamanca,

Salmantinus, s.v. Salam-.

Salmasianus, Claude de Saumaise, 1588-1653. Famous asa scholar —
and as a political controversialist (e.g. against Milton). Some of his
MSS. entered the Gude collection (5. ν. Gudianus), and others are at
Paris in Philibert de la Mare’s collection, (Delisle, Cabinet, i. 361.)

Sambecus, Joannes (1531-1584), Hungarian physician and historian.
His collection of MSS. is now in the Hofbibliothek, Vienna.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 345

Sanblasianus, library of 5. Blaise (S. Blasien), Germ. Part now at
S. Paul in Carinthia ; seme of the MSS. at Karlsruhe (s.v. Carols-
ruhensis).

Sancroftianus, MSS. of William Sancroft (1617-1693), Abp. of Canter-
bury. Now at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

St. Agerici, S. Ayric or Airy, Verdun, Fr.

S. Albini, St. Aubin, Angers, Fr. (Andegavensis). Some passed into
the possession of Petau.

St. Amand, adversaria (chiefly on Theocritus) left to the Bodleian by
James St. Amand (1687-1754). (H. O. Coxe, 1853.)

S. Amandi in Pabula, St. Amand en Puelle or Pevéle, near Valen-
ciennes, Fr. (Cf. Elnonensis.) MSS. now in town library, Valen-
ciennes. Some at Paris among Telleriani (q. v.).

S. Angeli ad Nilum, 5. Angelo a Nilo, Naples. (Blume, &7b/. /tal.,
p- Ig1.) Cf. Brancacciana.

S. Apri, S. Epvre or Evre, Toul.

S. Arnulphi, Metz, Germ. In Stadtbibl., Metz.

S. Audoeni, Rouen, Fr.

S. Bartolomé, Salamanca, Sp. MSS. at Madrid.

S. Basilii de Urbe, S. Basilio, Rome. MSS. inthe Vatican since 1780.
Many came from S. Italy.

S. Benedicti supra Ligerim, Monastery of S, Benoit-sur-Loire, at
Fleury, Fr. Cf. Bongarsianus, Petavianus.

S. Benignus, S. Benigne, Dijon. At Dijon, Paris, Montpellier.

S. Calixti de Cysoniis, Cysoing, Fr. Now at Lille.

S. Claude, Jura, Fr. The library of the monastery here was plun-
dered in the 17th cent. Fragments are at Paris, Besancon, Troyes,
Montpellier. The modern library contains some MSS. from St.
Oyan de Joux. (J. Gauthier*.)

S. Creus, Cistercian monastery of Santas Creus, Tarragona, Sp.,
destroyed in 1835.

S. Crucis, (1) Monastery of Santa Croce, Florence. MSS. in the
Laurentian. (2) Heiligenkreuz, N. Austria. (Cistercian.) (3)
Heiligenkreuz, Cesta, Kiistenland, Illyria, Austria. (Capuchin
monastery.) (4) s.v. Hierosolymitanus. (5) S. Crucis in Jerusa-
lem, Rome (in Vittorio Emanuele), s.v. Sessorianus.

San Cucufate de Vallés, Barcelona, Sp. In the Archivo, Barce-
lona.

5. Daniele, 5. v. Foroiuliensis.

S. Ebrulfi, S. Evroul, Fr. At Alencon and Rouen. Cf. Uticensis.

S. Eligii, (1) S. Eloy, Arras, Fr. (2) Scuola di 5. Eligio, Milan, It.

S. Emmeram, monastery at Ratisbon, Germ. MSS. now at Munich.

S. Eugendi, 5. Oyan, Fr. Cf. 5. Claude.

S. Fidei, Schlettstadt, Germ.

346 NOMENCLATURE

Sancti Galli in Helvetia, s. v. Sangallensis.

S. Gatiani, 5. Gatien, Tours, Fr.,s.v. Turonensis.

S. Geminiani, S. Gimignano, It.

S. Geneviéve, s.v. Paris.

S. Germani in Pratis, the Benedictine Abbey of S. Germain-des-Prés, ©
near Paris, Besides MSS. which had belonged to the abbey since
the oth cent. the library included at the end of the 18th cent. the
collections of Séguier, Renaudot, Harlay, and Cardinal de Gesvres.
In 1638 it received 400 MSS. from Corbie; in 1716 the MSS. of
5. Maur-des-Fossés. It was plundered in 1791 and Dubroysky
(q.v.) purchased some of the Corbie MSS. After a disastrous fire in
1794 the surviving MSS. were transferred to the National Library
at Paris.

S. Gregorii, Monastery of S. Gregory at Rome. MSS. now in the
Vittorio Emanuele. (Cf. S. Michaelis Venetiis.)

S. Illidii, S. Allyre, Puy-de-Dome, Fr.

S. Iohannis de Carbonaria, S. Giovanni a Carbonara, Naples, It.
Once contained MSS. of Demetrius Chalkondylas, Th. Gaza, and
Janus Parrhasius. Now in the Nazionale, Naples, and at Vienna,

S. Iohannis in Viridario, S. Giovanni in Verdura, Padua, It. MSS.
at Holkham and Venice.

S. Mang, Stadt am Hof, Bavaria. Now at Munich.

S. Mariae, Uelzen, near Liineburg, Germ.

S. Mariae Deiparae, Nitrian monastery. MSS. in Brit. Mus.

S. Mariae de Cupro, monastery at Coupar Angus, Scotland.

S. Martialis, Limoges. At Paris since 1730. (Delisle, Cabinet, i. 387.)

S. Martini, (1) Tours, Fr., s.v. Turonensis. (2) Tournai, Belg., s.v.
Tornacensis. (3) Pressburg, Germ. (Posonii). (4)s.v. Pannonhalma.

S. Maximini, (1) Tréves (Trier), Germ. A few MSS. remain at
T., the rest are widely dispersed. s.v. Goerresianus, (2) S. Mesmin
de Micy, near Orléans, Fr., s.v. Miciacensis.

S. Michaelis, (1) S. Michele, Venice. The library was dispersed in 1812.
Many MSS. were purchased by Capellari (afterwards Gregory XV1)
and by Zurla (afterwards Cardinal), and were given by them to the
Monastery of S. Gregory at Rome. This library is now incor-
porated with the Vittorio Emanuele. (Cicogna, Bibliografia Vene-
siana, 1847, p. 580.) (2) 5. Michaelis in periculo maris, Mont-Saint-
Michel, Fr. At Avranches. (3)S. Mihiel, Fr. (Michelant*.) (4) s.v.
Clusensis.

S. Nicolai templum monasterii Cassulorum, s.v. Hydruntinus.

5. Pantaleonis, a famous monastery at Cologne, Germ. MSS,
widely dispersed.

S. Patak, college at Admont, Austr.

S. Pauli in Carinthia, S. Paul in the Lavant-Thal, Carinthia, Austr.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 347

S. Petri, (1) s.v. Basilicanus. (2) San Pedro de Cardeiia, near Burgos,
Sp., s.v. Matritensis (4).

S. Placidi, S. Placido, south of Messina, Sicily, Destroyed in the
bombardment of 1848. MSS. said to have been in University
Library, Messina.

S. Remigii, S. Rémy, Rheims, Fr.

S. Salvatoris, S. Salvatore de’ Greci, Messina, Sicily; partly destroyed
in 1848. MSS. in University Library Messina, and Vatican.

S. Spiritus, Monastery of S. Spirito, Reggio in Emilia, It. (s.v. Regi-
ensis).

S. Stephani, (1) S. Etienne, Fr. (Galley*.) (2) Monastery, Wiirzburg,
Germ. (P. Lehmann, Franciscus Modius, p. 126.)

S. Taurini, s.v. Eboricanus, Duperron.

S. Trudonis, S. Trond, Belg. At Brussels and Liége.

S. Vedasti, S. Vaast or Vedast of Arras, Fr. MSS. at Arras,
Boulogne-sur- Mer.

S. Victoris, Abbey at Paris. Now in the Bibl. Nationale and Arsenal
Library. (L. Delisle, 1869.)

S. Vincentii, S. Vincent, Besancon, Fr.

S. Zenonis, S. Zeno at Reichenhall, Germ. Now at Munich.

Sangallensis, S. Gall, Switz. (1) Bibl. Monasterii S. Galli. (G.
Scherrer, 1875: History by Weidmann, 1846.) (2) Bibl. Vadiana
sive Oppidana, founded by Joachim von Watt or Vadianus, 1484—
1551, a Swiss jurisconsult and friend of Zwingli. (G. Scherrer,
1864; Haenel, pp. 665-722.)

Sangermanensis, s.v. S. Germani.

Sannazarianus, Jacopo Sannazaro (Actius Sincerus), 1458-1530. His
MS. of Ovid's Halieutica is now at Vienna.

Santenianus, Laurens van Santen, of Leyden (1746-1798). MSS. at
Berlin (Diez collection).

Sarisberiensis, s.v. Salisb-.

Sarravianus, Claude Sarrau, member of the Parliament of Paris,
d. 1651. Part of his collection is at Leyden.

Sarzanensis, Sarrezano, It.

Savigneiensis, Savigny, Fr. MSS. bought by Colbert, now at Paris.

Savilianus, MSS. of Sir Henry Savile (1549-1622), Warden of
Merton College, Oxford, and Provost of Eton. Gave MSS. to the
Bodleian in 1620.

Savinianus, bibl. com. at Savignano di Romagna, It.

Scaliger, Joseph Justus (1540-16cg), scholar. MSS. at Leyden.
(Cat. 1910.)

Scaphusianus, s.v. Probatopolitanus.

Schedelianus, Hartmann Schedel, 1440-1514. A Nuremberg physician,
author of the Nuremberg Chronicle. His collection of MSS. now

348 NOMENCLATURE

in the Staatsbibliothek, Munich. (R. Stauber, Die Schedelsche
Bibliothek, 1906.)

Schetilernentia! Scheftlarn on the Isar, Sern MSS. at Munich.

Schirensis, Scheyern, Germ. At Munich.

Schlettstadtensis, Schlettstadt; Alsace, Germ. Contains MSS,
S. Fidei (a Benedictine monastery) and of Beatus Rhenanus. (Ca?,
gen. des MSS. iii. 1861; F. Urtel, N. Jahr. f. Phil. 109, p. 215.)

Schottanus, Andreas Schott, 1552-1629, a Belgian Jesuit, classical
teacher in Spain (Toledo) and in Italy. MSS., many of which he
inherited from Pantin (s.v.), at Brussels and in Bodleian (Canonici),

Scorialensis, s.v. Esc-.

Sedanensis (Sedanum), Sedan, Fr. University here was abolished
in 1681 and the library dispersed.

Seguieranus, Pierre Séguier (1588-1672), Chancellor of France and
a notable patron of learning. s.v. Coislinianus.

Seguntinus (Seguntia), Siguenza, Sp. Chapter Library.

Seidelianus, Andreas Erasmus Seidel, 1650-1707. Dragoman in the
Venetian service in Greece. His MSS. were sold in 1712 and are
now at Leipzig, Dresden, Berlin, Moscow, Hamburg, British
Museum, and Holkham.

Seitenstettensis, Seitenstetten,Austr. Huemer, Wiener S/urd.1887, p.69.

Seldenianus, collection of John Selden, 1585-1654, the famous jurist, —
bequeathed to the Bodleian in 1654. (H.O. Coxe, 1853.)

Selestadiensis (Selestadium), Schlettstadt, Alsace, Germ. s.v. Sch-.

Senatorianus, Bibl. Senatoria, Leipzig, Germ, (A. G. R. Naumann,
1838.)

Senckenberg, Renatus Karl von, left his library in 1800 to
Giessen.

Senensis (Sena Julia), Siena, It. (1) Bibl. Comunale (L. Ilari,
1844-1848). (2) Bibl. eccl. Cathedralis. (E. Piccolomini, 1899: for
MSS., ἄς. taken to the Chigiana, Rome, v. Blume, //. /¢a/. iv. 228.) _

Senonensis (Agendicum Senonum), Sens, Fr. At Auxerre and-
Montpellier.

Seonensis, Benedictine monastery of 5. Lambert at Seon, Bavaria,
Germ. MSS. at Munich,

Seripando, Cardinal Girolamo Seripando (1493-1563), general of the
Augustinians, presented his own library and that of his brother
Antonio to the Augustinian monastery of S. Giovanni a Carbonara.
These are now for the most part in the library at Naples. A few
are at Vienna and in the Brit. Museum (Caz. of Anc. MSS. i, p. 15).
Many of Antonio’s MSS. were left to him by Parrhasius,

Serres, Macedonia. The μονὴ Προδρόμου.

Sessorianus, MSS. belonging to the College of the Cistercians at
Rome, in the Church of 5, Croce in Gerusalemme, or Basilica

OF MANUSCRIPTS 349

Sessoriana (so called from its vicinity to Constantine’s palace, the
Sessorium). Now in the Bibl. Vittorio Emanuele (q.v). Cf.
Nonantulanus.

Severnianus, ‘MSS. in the library of Mr. Severn of Thenford House,
near Banbury. They belonged formerly to Dr. Askew.’ (Arnold,
Thucydides, vol. 11, p. viii).

Severus, Gabriel of Monembasia, Abp. of Philadelphia early in 16th
cent., lived afterwards at Venice. Some of his MSS. are at Turin
and in Bodleian (Laudiani).

Seviliensis (Sevilia), Seville, Sp. s.v. Columbina.

Sevin, Francois, employed circ. 1728 to collect MSS. in the East for
the Royal Library, Paris. (Omont, M7ssions archeolog., 1902, p. 433.)

Sfortianus, library of the Sforza family at Rome. The collection of
Giovanni Sforza of Pesaro is described by A. Vernarecci in Arch.
stor, per le Marche ὁ per ? Umoria, iii, Ὁ. 513, 1886. MSS. of Cardinal
Guido Ascanio Sforza (1518-1564) have passed through the collection
of Passionei to the Angelica at Rome.

Sigeburgensis, Benedictine monastery of Siegburg, near Bonn, Germ.

Sigiramnensis, s.v. Cygir-.

Signiacensis, Signy, Fr. At Charleville.

Silos, monastery of, near Burgos, Sp. Some MSS. at Paris and
London.

Sinaiticus, Mount Sinai, monastery of S. Catherine. (Gardthausen,
1886: BeneSevic, 1911.)

Sinopensis, Sinope, Asia Minor.

Sionensis, Sion College, London.

Sirletanus, Cardinal Sirleto (1514-1585), librarian at the Vatican. MSS.
were purchased in 1611 by J. A. Altaemps (q. v.) and through him
have passed to the Vatican. A few are in the Escurial.

Sloanianus, collection of Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), purchased in
1754 for the British Museum. (E. J. Scott, 1904.)

Slusianus, Johannes Gualterus, Cardinalis Slusius (d. 1687), b. at Vise
in diocese of Liittich (Liége). The catalogue of his library at Rome is
given in Montfaucon, B. Bibl., p. 175, and was published separately
by F. Deseine, Rome, 1690. Purchased by Queen Christina of
Sweden for her collection, now in the Vatican (Bibl. Alexandrina).

Smyrnensis, Smyrna, Asia Minor. (Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1877.)

Solodurensis (Solodurum), Solothurn, Switz.

Sonegiensis (Sonegium, Sogniacum), Soignies, Belg.

Sorbonnensis, Sorbonianus, the Sorbonne, Paris. Now in the Bibl.
Nat. (Lat. Delisle, 1870: Gk. Omont, Juventaire sommaire.)

Spanhemensis, Sponhemensis, Spanheim, Germ. The Palatine MS.
of the Anthology is thought to have belonged to the monastery there.

Sparnacensis (Sparnacum), Epernay, Fr,

350 NOMENCLATURE

Spencerianus, s.v. Althorp.

Spinaliensis (Spinalium), Epinal, Fr.

Spirensis (Spira Nemetum), Speyer, Germ.

Stabulensis (Stabulum), S. Remacle at Stavelot or Stabloo, Belg.
Now at Paris.

Stephanus, Henricus (Estienne), 1531-1598. French printer and
scholar. Some MSS. in British Museum (Harleian), Stockholm,
Geneva, and Paris.

Strahoviana, library of Premonstratensian Canons at Prague.

Strozzianus, (1) Piero Strozzi (1500-1558), Marshal of France, v.
Ridolfianus. (2) Carolus Strozza, of Florence (1587-1670). MSS.
in the Laurentian and in Magliabecchiana collection (Bibl. Centrale),
Florence.

Stuttgardensis, or Stuttgartinus (Stuttgardia), Stuttgart, Germ.

Sublacensis (Sublaqueum), Subiaco, It. Bibl. dell’ Abbazia. (Mazza-
tinti.)

Sukhanov, Arsenii Sukhanov, archdeacon of Moscow, visited Egypt
(1649) and Athos. MSS. in Library of the Synod, Moscow. Cf. —
Ε΄ Spiro’s Pausanias, i, p. vii.

Suchtelenianus, MSS. of Count Sukhtelen incorporated with the
Imperial Library, S. Petersburg, in 1836.

Suecicus, v. Sueco-Vat.

Sueco-Vaticanus, Collection of Christina of Sweden, now in the.
Vatican, also called Reginensis (q.v.).

Suessionensis (Suessio, Noviodunum), Soissons, Fr. (Molinier*:
E. Fleury.)

Susianus, Jacobus Susius (Suys), of Holland (fl. circ. 1590). Owner |
of various MSS., e.g. Leyden codex of Germanicus Aratea.

Sylburgius, IF. (1536-1596), German scholar. MSS. at Munich.

Syon, monastery of the Brigittine order at Isleworth, Eng. The
library was dispersed on the suppression of the monastery in 1539
(old catalogue ed. by M. Bateson, 1898).

Syracusanus, Syracuse, Sicily. (Mazzatinti, 1887.)

Ὶ

Tanneriani, MSS. of Thomas Tanner (1674-1735), ΒΡ. οἵ S. Asaph.
In Bodleian, Oxford. ;

Tarvisiensis (Tarvesium, Trevisium), Treviso, It. ? At Venice.

Taurinensis (Augusta Taurinorum), Turin, It. Bibl. Nazionale and
University Library. (J. Pasini, 1749; G. Ottino (Bobienses), 1890.
It suffered severely from the fire on Jan. 26, 1904. Cf. E. Stampini,—
Rivista di Filologia, 32, p. 385 ; G. Gorrini, 1904.)

Taylor, John (1704-1766), classical scholar. Left his MSS, to
A, Askew (s.v. Askevianus, cf. Tophanes).

OF MANUSCRIPTS 351

Tegernseensis, Tegernsee, Bavaria. Now at Munich.

Teleky, s.v. Maros-Vasarhely.

Tellerianus Remensis, Charles Maurice Le Tellier, Abp. of Rheims,
d. 1710. He presented his MSS. to the Bibl. Roy., Paris, in 1700.

Teplensis, Tepl, Bohemia.

Teutoburgensis, Duisburg, Germ. s.v. Duisburgensis.

Theodoriana, library at Paderborn, Germ.

Thessalonicensis, Salonica, Turkey. (Cf. Sp. Lambros, 4 enaeum,
1890, Ρ. 451.)

Thevenotianus, MSS. belonging to Melchisédech Thévenot (1620-
1692), traveller, librarian of Bibl. Royale, Paris, 1684-1692. Mostly
at Paris since 1712.

Tholonensis, Toulon, Fr.

Thompsonianus, collection of H. Yates Thompson, England. (De-
scriptive Catalogue of Fifty MSS., 1898; Facsimiles, 1908, 1912.)
Thosanus, Cistercian monastery of Ter Doest, near Bruges, Belg.
Since the time of Napoleon the greater part of the MSS. have
been in the public Library of Bruges. Others at Berlin, Brussels,

Cambridge, Leyden.

Thottiana, at Copenhagen, now part of the Royal Library. (Catalogue,
1789. )

Thuaneus, Jacques Auguste de Thou, President of the Parliament
of Paris and keeper of the Royal Library. From 1573-1617 he
formed a large collection consisting largely of MSS. once owned
by Pierre Pithou, Nicolas Le Febvre, and the Jesuits of Clermont
(i.e. the first collection made before their expulsion in 1595). This
was purchased by Colbert in 1680.

Thysiana, a library at Leyden, founded 1655 by Dr. Johannes Thysius,
now part of the University Library. (P. J. Blok, 1907.)

Ticinensis, Ticino, It. Visconti library was removed to France by
Louis XII in 1509. Some MSS. now at Paris. Cf. Laurentii
Pignorii Symbolarum Epistolic. liber, ep. xvi, p. 54. Patavii, 1628.

Tigurinus, Tigurum, Zirich, Switz. Cf. Turicensis.

Tiliobrogianus, Friedrich Lindenbrog or Lindenbruch, of Hamburg,
1573-1648: editor of Statius. Some of his MSS. came into the
possession of Marquard Gude (s.v. Gudianus).

Til(ljianus, (1) Joannes Tilius (Du Tillet) came from a family be-
longing to the Angoumois (hence called Engolismensis), Bp. of
Meaux, d. 1570. He was a noted antiquary. MSS. once in his
possession are at Leyden, Wolfenbiittel, and in the Vatican.
(C. H. Turner, Appendix V in Fotheringham’s Facsimile of the
Bodleian codex of Jerome's Chronicle.) (2) s.v. Morelii.

Toletanus (Toletum), Toledo, Sp. Cathedral Library, Bibl. del
Cabildo. (Haenel, pp. 983-990.) Fragmentum Toletanum of Sallust

352 NOMENCLATURE

is now at Berlin. Many MSS, transferred to Bibl. Nacional,
Madrid.

Tollianus, Jacob Tollius (ἃ. 1696), Professor at Duisburg, Germ.

Tolosanus, Tolosatensis (Tolosa), Toulouse, Fr. (Molinier*.)

Torgaviensis (Torgavia), Torgau, Germ.

Tornacensis (Tornacum), Tournai, Belg. (A, Wilbaux, 1860.) The
MSS. of the Cathedral and of the suppressed Monastery of S. Martin
were dispersed, v. Haenel, p. 770; Sanderus, Bibl. Belgica, pp. 91,
208 sqq. Many are among the Telleriani (q. v.).

Tornaesianus, Jean Detournes, printer of Lyon, d. 1564. He was
the possessor of a codex of Cic. Epp. ad Alt.

Torrentianus, MS. belonging to Laevinus Torrentius (van der
Becken), Bp. of Antwerp, d. 1595. Collection passed to the Jesuits
of Louvain.

Towneleianus, MSS. belonging to the Towneley family, of Towneley,
Lancashire. Dispersed circ. 1814, after the death of Charles T.
(1737-1805). Some were purchased by Dr. Charles Burney, whose
library was bought by the British Museum in 1818.

Tophanes Taylori, conjectures, chiefly on the text of the Attic
Orators, preserved among the papers of Richard Topham (1671-
1730), of Trinity College, Oxford. T.’s collections were presented
to Eton College by Richard Mead, d. 1754. John Taylor the
Cambridge scholar (1704-1766) communicated the conjectures to
Reiske, who misread ‘Topham’s (MS.)’ as ‘ Tophanis’.

Traguriensis (Tragurium), Trau, Dalmatia. The MS. of Petronius
was discovered there in the Library of Nicolaus Cippicus by
Marinus Statilius circ. 1650.

Trajectinus (Trajectum ad Rhenum, Ultrajectum), Utrecht, Holland.
University Library. (P. A. Tiele, 1887; Hulshof, 1909 ; De Utrecht-
sche Universiteitsbibliotheek, J. F. van Someren, 1909.)

Transylvanensis, s.v. Batthyanianus.

Trecensis (Trecae, Augustobona Trecassium), Troyes, Fr, (Har-
mand*, Dorez et Det*.)

Trevirensis (Augusta Trevirorum), Trier or Tréves,Germ. (Keutfer,
1888. )

Trevethianus, a family of MSS. of Seneca’s Tragedies which preserve
the readings of a MS. used by an English Dominican Nicholas
Treveth or Triveth (1258-1328).

Trevisani, a family at Padua who once owned the Bodleian
(Saibante) Epictetus. v. Tommasini, Bibliotheca Patavina, Utini,
1639, P- 115:

Tricassinus, s.v. Trecensis.

Trincavellianus, Vettore Trincavelli (1491-1563), Venetian physician
and scholar. He produced the £d. pr. of Stobacus, 1535.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 999

Trivulziana, Library of the Trivulzi family at Milan, It. (G. Porro,
1884; E. Martini, Gk. MSS., 1896.)

Truebnerianus, Tribner collection at Heidelberg.

Tubingensis (Tubinga), Tibingen, Germ. (ὟΝ. Schmidt in a Pro-
gramm, 1902.) The princely library at Hohentiibingen is now at
Munich.

Tudertinensis (Tudertum), Todi, It.

Turicensis, Ziirich, Switz. (1) Cantons- und Universitats-Bibliothek
(Fritzsche, 1848). (2) Stadtbibliothek.

Turingicus, Thuringia. A name given by the older scholars to MSS.
belonging to Erfurt (q.v.).

Turonensis (Urbs Turonum, Caesarodunum), Tours, Fr. (Collon*.)
Contains MSS. from S. Gatien (Jotian and V. d’Avanne, 1706),
S. Martin, and Marmoutiers.

U

Uelcensis, Uelzensis, Uelzen, Liineburg. A few MSS. from Monas-
tery of 5. John Baptist are now at Wolfenbiittel.

Uffenbachianus, Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach (1683-1734), a
celebrated bibliophile of Frankfort (on Main), Germ. (Catalogues
of his library, Halle, 1720; Frankfort, 1729-1731.) Some codd. at
Karlsruhe : a few came into the possession of Henry Allen of Dublin
(s.v. Alanus).

Ulmensis (Ulma), Ulm, Germ. MSS. at Stuttgart and Munich.

Ultratrajectinus, s.v. Trajectinus.

Upsaliensis (Upsalia), Upsala, Sweden. (J. C. Sparvenfeld, 1706;
P. F. Aurivillius, 1806. For MSS. formerly in the Escurial v.
Lundstrém in Eranos 2, Upsala, 1897.) MSS. of Benzelius.

Urbevetanus, s.v. Urbs Vetus.

Urbs Vetus, Orvieto, It.

Urbinas (Urbinum), Urbino, It. The MSS. of Federico Duke of
Urbino, collected circ. 1463, were left to the town of Urbino by
Duke Francesco Maria in 1631. They were incorporated with the
Vatican by Pope Alexander VII in 1657. (Gk. MSS., Stornajolo,
1895; Lat. MSS., Stornajolo, vol. i, 1902.)

Ursinianus. The MSS. of Fulvio Orsini, numismatist and antiquary
(1529-1600). In the Vatican since 1600. (G. Beltrami, 1886.)

Ursonensis (Urso), Osuna, Sp.

Uspenskyanus. The collection of MSS. formed by Porfiri Uspensky
(1804-1883), Bp. of Kiev, Russia. In the Imperial Library of
S. Petersburg since 1883. (V. K. Jernstedt, 1883.)

Usserianus. The collection of James Ussher (1581-1656), Abp. of
Armagh, Ireland. Purchased for Trinity College, Dublin, in 1661.

473 Aa

354 NOMENCLATURE

Uticensis (Uticum), S. Evroul (Ebrulphus) d’Ouche, Normandy.
Some MSS. at Alencon and Rouen.

Utinensis (Utina), Udine, It. Biblioteca Florio. (Mazzatinti:
Cosattini, Studi Ital., 4, p. 201, 1896.)

V

Vadianus, s.v. Sangallensis.

Valentianensis (Valentianae in Flandris), Valenciennes, Fr. (Man-
geart, 1860; Molinier*.) Cf. 5. Amandi.

Valentiniana, Library at Camerino, It.

Valentinus (Valentia), Valencia, Sp. Cf. Calabricus.

Valesianus, (1) Henricus Valesius (de Valois), 1603-1676, French
scholar. MSS. at Orléans, s.v. Aurelianensis. (2) Adrien de Valois,
1607-1692, his brother, historiographer and scholar.

Vallensis, MSS. of Laurentius Valla, the Italian humanist (1417-1467).
At Paris, Vatican, Modena. ᾿

Vallettianus, MSS. of Giuseppe Valletta, bought for Oratorian
Library, Naples, in 1726.

Vallicellianus. The library of the Oratory of S. Maria in Vallicella,
Rome, founded by the Portuguese scholar Achilles Statius (Estago),
1581. (E. Martini, 1902, gives the Gk. MSS.)

Vallis Clericorum, Vauclere or Vauclair, Fr. MSS. at Laon.

Vallisoletanus (Vallisoletum), Valladolid, Sp. (Gutierrez del Caio,
1880-1890.)

Varinus, 5. v. Guarinus.

Varsoviensis (Varsovia), Warsaw, Poland. MSS. at S. Petersburg,
Imperial Library, since 1834.

Vasteras, s.v. Arosiensis.

Vaticanus. The Papal Library in the Vatican, Rome, first organized
by Nicholas V (1447-1455). The oldest collections of MSS. are :—
(1) Ottoboniani (s.v.). (2) Palatini (s.v.). (3) Bibliotheca Pii II,
transferred on his death in 1464 to 5. Silvestro and incorporated
with the Vatican by Clement XI (1700-1721). (4) Reginenses
(s.v.). The Reginenses and the Bibl. Pii II form the Brblotheca
Alexandrina, so called after Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691).
(5) Urbinates (s.v.). (6) Vaticani antiqui (Valtasso and Cavalieri,
1902). (7) Capponiani (s.v.). Among recent additions to the Library
are: (1) the Bibl. Barberina. (2) Bibl. 5. Basilii de Urbe. (3)
Bibl. Borghesiana. (4) Bibl. Columnensis. (5) MSS. of Museo
Borgiano, transferred in 1902. These are described under their
several titles.

Vedastinus, S. Vaast, Arras, Fr.

Venetus (Venetiae), Venice, It. s.v. Marciana. (For old libraries ef.
J. P. Tomasini, Bibliothecae Venetae, 1650.)

OF MANUSCRIPTS 355

Ventimilliana, library at Catania, Sicily (s.v. Catinensis).

Vercellensis (Vercellae), Bibl. Agnesiana, Vercelli, It.

Veronensis (Verona), Verona, It. (1) The Capitular Library. (A.
Masotti, 1788; Giuliari, 1888; Gk. MSS. described by Omont, Zen-
tralblatt fiir Bibl., viii, p. 489.) (2) Bibl. Comunale. (G. Biadego,
1892.)

Vesontinus (Vesontio), Besancon, Fr. MSS. of Cardinal Granvella.
(Castan* ; Gk. MSS., E. Gollob, rgr0.)

Viceburgensis, s.v. Herbipolitanus.

Vicecomites, i.e. Visconti, 5. v. Papiensis Ticinensis.

Vicetinus (Vicetia or Vincentia), Vicenza, It. Bibl. Bertoliana.

Victoriacensis (Victoriacum), Vitry-le-Francois, Fr.

Victorianus, Pietro Vettori (Victorius), 1499-1584. Professor of
Classics at Florence. Part of his collection of MSS. is at Munich.
Villoison, Jean-Baptiste Gaspard d’Ansse de (1753-1805), Professor
of Greek at Paris. MSS. at Paris, London, Géttingen, Florence

(Laurent.).

Vimariensis (Vimaria, Vinaria), Weimar, Germ.

Vindobonensis (Vindobona), Vienna, Austr. (1) Bibl. Caesarea
(or Palatina), now called the K. K. Hofbibliothek, founded
in 1440. (Gk. Nessel, 1690; Lat. Endlicher, 1836.) The Library
contains MSS. formerly in the possession of Busbecq, Matthias
Corvinus, Sambucus, Raymund Fugger, Lambecius, and also Gk.
MSS. transferred in 1778 from Neapolitan monasteries. (2) Bibl.
des Schottenstiftes (A. Hiibl, 1899). (3) Fideikommissbibliothek.
(M. Becker, 1873.) (4) Rossiani (5. ν. Rossianus).

Vindocinensis (Vindocinum), Vendéme, Fr.

Virdunensis, S. Ayric and S. Vito at Verdun, Fr.

Visconti, s.v. Papiensis.

Vitebergensis (Viteberga), Wittenberg, Germ.

Vittorio Emanuele, Library at Rome founded in 1876. It contains
the MSS. of many suppressed monasteries and churches, e.g.
S. Andrea de Valle, Ara Caeli, Collegio Romano, Farfenses,
Sessoriani. (Gk. MSS., D. Tamila, Studi It., 1902. Bibl. del Ecole
des Chartes, 1881, xlii, p. 605, describes the losses suffered by thefts in
1870.)

Volaterranus, Volterra, It. Bibl. Guarnacciana. (Mazzatinti.)

Vorauviensis, Vorau, Austr.

Vormatiensis, s. v. Wormaciensis.

Vossianus, MSS. of Isaac Voss (1618-1689), scholar and friend of
Queen Christina of Sweden, appointed prebend of Windsor by
Charles II in 1673. His collection of 762 MSS. was sold by his
executors to the University Library at Leyden after unsuccessful

negotiations with the Bodleian.
Aa2

356 NOMENCLATURE

Vratislaviensis (Vratislavia), Breslau, Germ. (1) Stadtbibliothek,
containing the MSS. of Rehdiger and of Bibl. Magdalenaea (q.v.).
(Catalogue of Gk. MSS., 1889.) (2) University Library. (3) Dom-
bibliothek founded by Bp. Roth (1482-1506), destroyed in 1632,
but restored later (cf. J. Jungnitz, Silesiaca, 1898).

Vulcanianus, Bonaventura Vulcanius (de Smet), b. Bruges 1538,
Professor of Greek at Leyden 1578, d. 1614. His MSS. are now at
Leyden. (Catalogue, 1910.)

W

Wallersteinensis, MSS. in the library of the Grafen von Oettingen-
Waazlerstein at Maihingen, Germ.

Wallianus, MSS. collected by Hermann van der Wall, acquired by
D’Orville, from whom they passed to the Bodleian.

Wallrafianus, the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, Germ., founded
by Kanonikus F. Wallraf, d. 1824. Now incorporated with the
Stadtbibliothek.

Warmiensis (Warmia), Warmerlandt, now Ermeland, a diocese of
East Prussia. The Bishop had his see at Frauenburg.

Weihenstephensis, Weihenstephan, Germ. At Munich.

Weilburgensis, Weilburg, Germ. Bibl. des Kénigl. Gymnasiums.
(R. Gropius, 1885.)

Weingartensis, Weingarten, Germ. Now at Stuttgart and Fulda.

Weissenauensis, the Monasterium Sanctorum Petri et Pauli at
Weissenburg, Alsace, Germ. At Wolfenbiittel since 1690.

Weissenburgensis, (1) Weissenburg, Transylvania, Austr., now known
as Karlsburg. MSS, inthe Batthyaneum. (2) Weissenburg, Alsace.
MSS. of the abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, now at Wolfenbittel
(5. v. Guelferbytanus).

Weissenstein, s. v. Pommerstfelden.

Werdensis, (1) Donauwérth, Verda or Donavertia, Germ. (2) The
Reichsabtei at Werden in Prussia. .MSS. at Berlin, Darmstadt,
Diisseldorf, Minster. (A. Schmidt, Zentralblatt fiir Bibl., 1905,
Ρ. 241.)

Wernigerodensis, Wernigerode, Germ. (Férstermann, 1866.)

Wessofontanus, Wessobrunn, Germ. Now at Munich.

Westeras, s.v. Arosiensis.

Widmannianus, MSS. belonging to Karl Widmann of Wolfenbittel,
circ. 1613, 6.5. that of Prudentius now in the British Museum.

Wigorniensis, (1) Wigornium or Vigornia, Worcester, England.
(2) Worcester College, Oxford.

Windbergensis, Windberg, Germ. At Munich.

Wintonianus, Wintonensis (Wintonium), Winchester, England.
Libraries at the Cathedral and at the College of S. Mary.

OF MANUSCRIPTS 357

Wirzeburgensis, Wiirzburg, Germ., s.v. Herbipolitanus.

Wittert, Coll. of Baron Adrien de W. (1823-1903). Now at Liege
(s.v. Leodicensis).

Wittianum fragmentum. A fragment of Martial discovered by Karl
Witte at Perugia circ. 1829. For J. de Witt, a Dutch collector of
MSS. at the end of the 18th century, vide s.v. Marcianus (3).

Wolf (Johann Christoph), pastor at Hamburg, d. 1739. MSS. in
Johanneum, Hamburg.

Wolfenbuttelensis, s.v. Guelferbytanus.

Wormaciensis (Wormacia), Worms, Germ.

Wyttenbachianus, MSS. of Daniel Albert Wyttenbach (1746-1820),
Professor at Leyden. In the University Library, Leyden, since 1822.

x

Ximenes, Fr. (1459-1517), Cardinal and Abp. of Toledo. MSS. at
Toledo.

Z

Zalusciana bibliotheca, formerly at Warsaw, transferred in 1795 to
the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg. It was founded by Count
Joseph Zaluski in 1747.

Zamoyski Library, Warsaw, Russia.

Zulichemius, s.v. Hugenianus.

Zurla, s. v. S. Michaelis.

Zviccaviensis, Zwickau, Germ. Cf. Daumianus.

Zwettl, Lower Austria. (J. von Frast, 1846; Réssler in Xena
Bernardina, 1891.)

yaa

INDEX

Acc. corr. =accentus correctus,

accedit A, i.e. codex A begins or re-
sumes.

Accius, L., editions by, 56.

accommodation, false, 172, 174.

Acta Sanctorum, Ifr.

Adalhard, 95.

add. =addidit et simlia.

Adelperga, 96.

adn. = adnotatio, adnotat e¢ sim.

adnotatio, 61.

adscripts, 195.

al. =alius, aliter.

Alcuin, 76; on punctuation, 86, 87.

Alexandrines, their methods, 34;
their main interest was in poetry,
33; Aristarchus, 36.

alphabet, spread of the, 4.

Amplonius von Ratinck, 79.

anagrammatism, 176.

Anglo-Saxons, their work on the con-
tinent, 75.

anonymous literature, 14.

Ansoaldus, 85.

anthologies, their effect upon texts,
40, 139.

Apellikon, 208.

ἀρχαία ἔκδοσις of Demosthenes, 51.

archetype, definition of an, 125 (with
note).

Aristarchus, 36.

Aristotle, text of Poetics, 107; of
Physics, 146; A.’s interest in philo-
logy, 30.

armarium, 8.

the Arts, origin of the system, 72; in
Isidore, 67; Artes )( Auctores, 72;
in France, 8r.

᾿Αττικιανὰ ἀντίγραφα, 51, 230.

Atzidas of Rhodes, 291.

Augustine on profane literature, 62;
on Cicero’s Hortensius, 64.

Aulus Gellius on the text of Sallust,

59-

the Bankes papyrus, 2.

Barth, Caspar von, 128.

Bast, F. J., Commentatio Palacographica,
118 (note).

Beatus Rhenanus, 114.

Bede on corruption of numerals, 180.

Bekker, I., 123.

Benedict, 64; rule of, 109; Bene-
dictines, 111; at Monte Cassino,
96 (note).

S. Benoit sur Loire (Fleury), MSS.
from, 116.

Bentley, R., 120 sgg.; on a MS. of
Manilius, 121.

Bernard of Chartres, 8r.

biblical names introduced into texts,
182.

binions, 84.

Bobbio, Spanish MSS. at, 82; palim-
psests at, 83.

Boeckh, A., on the percentage of true
conjectures, 150.

Pollandists, 111.

bombycinus, 1 (note).

Boniface, 75.

books, privately made copies, 14;
book-trade in Greece, 10; in Rome,
10-11.

Bosius, 128.

Britain, influence on the Irish, 73
(note).

βύβλος, 3.

Budaeus, 105.

Burman’s variorum editions, 118.

Byblos, 4.

Byzantine scholarship, 25.

Caesar, text of, 131.

Callimachus, his πίνακες, 32.

Calliopius, 276.

capsa, 8.

Carolingians, their services to Latin
texts, 89.

Carrio, Ie 116:

χάρτης, 4 3 χάρται used for the writings
of Hippocrates, 15.

Cassius Dio, text of, 133.

Cassiodorus, 65; on orthography, 87.

catchwords, 179.

Cato, De Agricultura, text of, 52;
Pliny’s text of, 141.

Catullus, text of, 135.

Centuriators, the Magdeburg, irr.

360

Charlemagne, intellectual revival fos-
tered by, 76.

charters, 109.

Chartres, school at, 80.

Choiseul Gouffier, 304.

Christianity and profane literature, 62,
64, 68.

ci. =coniecit οὐ sim.

Cicero, Academica, 10: Ad Familiares,
19; De lege agraria, 61.

‘Ciceronianism’, 115.

cimelia, 287.

classification of MSS., 127.

codex, shape of, 2; its history in
Greece, 15; codex in the Ist cent.

D., 16 ; used by the church, 17;

recto and verso. 84; gatherings or
quires, 84; foliation of, 84 ; age and
accuracy, 128.

cola, 86.

coll. =collato et sim.

collation in the middle age, 87.

Cologne, a centre of learning, 117.

Columban, 75.

commata, 86.

commentaries, 41.

conflation, 197.

coni =co(n)iecit e¢ sim.

contin. =continuat, i.e. some portion
of the text is transferred to the
preceding or succeeding speaker.

contractions, 157; Traube on, 163.

copyists, Cassiodorus’ instructions
to, 66; methods of, in the middle
age, 83; Petrarch on, 100; Poggio
on, 100; Leo Aretinus on, Ior;
Jerome on, 155.

Cottonian library, 287.

Crates Mallotes, 54.

Cuiacius, 115.

cum ras. =cum rasura.

cursus velox, 152.

Damocrates, 181.

Daniel, P., his collection of MSS, 116

Dante, 92.

Dawes’ canon, 152.

decads, 8.

Decretals, the False, 11o.

del. =deleuit e/ sim.

δέλτος, 4.

δημώδης, 47.

Demosthenes, text of, 49; the Third
Philippic, 50; the Third Epistle, 52.

dett. = codices deteriores,

diacritical signs, 54, 58;
Roman scholars, 61.

διασκευή, 295.

dictation, whether practised in ancient

their use by

INDEX

times, 11; in the middle age, 85
183.

Dicuil and Pliny the Elder, 88.

Didymus, 30.

δίκτυον, 6.

διορθωτής, IT.

diplomata, 112.

5 σσογραφία, 179.

dist. =distinxit e¢ st,

distinctio, 6r.

dittography, ror.

Dominicans, 79.

dominus gregis, 53.

Donation of Constantine, Ito.

double tradition of text of Martial
137; Statius, 137; Shakespe
and Goethe, 138.

dramatists. text of Latin, 53, 57.

Dutch scholarship, 117.

‘eccentric’ texts of Homer, 240 55. Ὁ

Eckhart, 113 (note). |

Egypt, papyrus rolls from, 2.

Einhard, 144 (note).

ἔκδοσις = edition, 32; ἀρχαία of Demo-
sthenes, 51.

elegiac poets, text of, 45.

emendation, 150 sqq.

enneads, 8.

environment, influence of, in causing
corruptions, 156, Τὴ Τὰ

eras. =erasus δή sim,

Erasmus, his ‘Ciceronianus’,
on MSS. of N.T., τῶι.

ἐσχατοκύλλιον, 14.

etacism, 184.

Etymologiae of Isidore, 67.

Euthydemus, library of, 27.

ex sil.=ex silentio, i.e. a reading is
assumed to be in a MS. because the
collator has not noted any variation
from the text with which he has
made his collation. Often an
unjustifiable inference.

exp.=expunctus ef sim., i.e. one or
more letters have been marked with
dots in the MS. to show that they
ought to be omitted.

External evidence for a text, 140.

115;

Flacius, Matthias, στο.

Fleury, pillaged by the Huguenots,
mana

foliation, 84.

forgeries in the quattrocento, 102.

France, learning in 11th-reth cent.,
8s,

Fronto on ancient editions, 55 (note).

Fulda, 75.

INDEX

Galen, on vellum as a writing material,
2 (note); on Hippocrates, 15; on
emendation, 150; on ἐρμηνεία and
γνώμη, 152; peculiarities in his
style, 152.

Gasparino di Barrizza and the De
Oratore, 103.

Gelenius, S., 114.

genealogy of MSS., 123, 130; limita-
tions of genealogical method, 149.

Gerbert on ancient literature, 70 ; his
love of the classics, 78.

S. Germain-des-Prés, 111.

Germany, learning in gth-roth cent.,
978; im the rath cent., 79; in the
14th cent., 79.

Germon, B, 112.

* ghost-words ’, 172.

yp. = γράφεται, a sign used to introduce
a marginal or interlinear variant
reading.

graphical probability, 139.

Greeks of the Italian Renaissance, 105.

Grimwald, 109.

Gronovius, J. F., 119.

Hadoard and the text of Cicero, 71.
haplography, 189.

Hardouin, J., 112 (note).

Harris papyrus, 2.

Headlam, W., on transposition, 176.
hebraisms, 182.

Heinsius, N., 118.

Heliconius and the text of Isocrates, 43.
Henschen, G., 111.

Herculaneum, 2.

Hermodorus, 28.

Herodotus on papyrus, 5.
Hesychius, Musurus’ ed. of, 105.
hexads, 8.

Hildebert of Tours, 81.
Hippocrates, early editions of, 15.
Hirschau, 79.

Homeric poems, the text of, 38.
homoeoteleuta, 189.

humanism, 98-9.

von Hutten, 113 (note).

imitations as evidence for a text, 141.

insular script, 82.

interp.=interpungit et sim.

interpolare, original meaning of, 186.

interpolation, ancient, 29, 186 ; Byzan-
tine, 43 sgg.; monkish, 188; late
Italian, ror.

interpretation, Lachmann on, 125.

intrinsic probability, 139, 151, 153.

Ionian scholarship, 31.

Irish, their work in Europe, 74-5;

361

careless in spelling Latin, 86; the
Irish script, &9.

Isidore, 67-8.

Isocrates, codex Urbinas of, 123.

itacism, 184.

Italy, always has an educatedlaity, 95 ;
ignorance of the clergy, 96.

Jerome, on profane literature, 62, 64 ;
on punctuation, 86; his de viris
illustribus, 148 ; on copyists, 155.

Jesuits, their rivalry with the Bene-
dictines, 112.

κόλλημα, 6.
κορωνίς, 7.

lac. =lacuna.

Lachmann, K., on the text of the NV. 7.
122 (note); on Lucretius, 125 52.

Lagomarsini, G., 124.

Lambinus, D., 113.

Lampadio, 56.

Landriani, G., 224.

lemma, 145-6.

Lexicon Vindobonense quoted, 7.

line, its standard length in the papyrus
roll, 9 (note), r1.

lipography, Igo.

Livius Andronicus, his version of the
Odyssey, 1.

Loisel, Antoine, 295.

Lombards become Italianized, 95.

lorum, 14.

losses in Greek literature, causes of, 18.

Lucretius, text of, 57; Havercamp’s
text, 118.

Lupus Servatus, his interest in Cicero's
works, 77; on collation, 87.

Lycurgus and the text of the three
tragedians, 29.

m. = manus.
τη. sec. = Manus secunda.
Mabillon, J., on the classics, 70;
founder of palaeography, 11-- 2.
Madvig, J. N., on method of criticism,
124 (note).

Maffei, S., 113.

Manogaldus on Ovid, go.

marg. = margo, in margine εἶ szm., i.e.
any marginal annotation or sign.

Martial, his evidence for the codex, 16 ;
text of, 137.

Mavortius, 63.

mediaeval scholars, methods of, 83.

Merovingian decay, 76; their texts,
85. :

metathesis, 176.

362

metre in early papyri, 12.

mixture of readings, 129.

Modius, F., 116.

Moerbecke, William of, 147.

Mommsen, Th., on Solinus, 124.

monasticism, influence of the Cluniacs,
79.

monkish interpolations, 180.

Montfaucon, B. de, his Palaeographia
Graeca, 112.

Musurus, his edition of Hesychius,
105 ; of Aristophanes, 206.

Netherlands, scholarship of the, 116.

Niccoli, Nicolo de’, 100.

Nicolaus Cusanus, 110.

Nicomachi, 63, 65.

notae iuris, 166; notae Tironianae, 166.

de Notts, tract, 54.

Notker Labeo, 70.

numerals, corruption in transcribing,
180.

Odo of Cluny, 79.
ὀμφαλός, 14.
Orléans, 81.
orthography,
Irish, 86.
Otto I, 78.

Cassiodorus on, 87;

Pacificus of Verona, 95.

pagina, 6.

palaeography, growth of, 108 sqq.

Palaeologi, revival under the, 43.

palimpsests, 83.

Pamphilus of Caesarea, 18.

Panegyricus Berengaril, 95.

Papebroch, D., 111.

paper, Chinese origin of, 1.

papyrus, where grown, 3; Theo-
phrastus’ account of, 5 ; introduced
into Greece, 4; its price in Athens
and Rome, 5, 16; signs used in
papyri, 13; its fragility, 14; failure
in the supply of, 17 (note).

παράδοσις, i.e. the traditional text, 37.

paraphrases, 41,

Paulinus of Nola, 62.

Peiresc, N., 118 (note).

pentads, 8.

Pergamum, 31 (and note); Pergamene
scholarship, 54.

Petrarch on copyists, 100.

Petrie Phaedo, the, 29.

philyrae, 5

Pindar, text of, 46.

Pithoeus, P., 116.

plagula, 6.

Plautus, text of, 57.

INDEX

Pliny, on papyrus, 5.

pluteus, 287.

Poggio, on owners of MSS., 100; on
copyists, ror ; his work on the text
of Cicero, 219.

Politian, 106 (and note).

Pomponius, Laetus, 102 (note).

Priene, inscription from, 15.

primitus uidetur fuisse &c.,i. e. the first
hand reads, &c.

probationes pennae, 85, 183.

Probus and Vergil, 58, 60.

pronunciation, 183; as a source of
error, 176.

proper names, specially liable to cor-
ruption, 155, 181 ; how designated,
159.

πρωτόκολλον, 14.

psychological errors, 154.

punct. subi. = puncto subiecto, ef. s. v.
Exp.

punctuation, 61; Cassiodorus on, 66 ;
Jerome on, 86; Alcuin on, 86, 87.

Puteaneus of Livy, 85.

Quadrivium, 72.

quaternions, 84.

quinternions, 84.

Quintilian on alterations made by
editors, 59.

quire, 84 (note 2).

quotations, in ancient writers, 14}; as
evidence for a text, 141.

ras, =rasura.

Rather of Verona, 78.

recc. =codices recentiores.

recension, 109; ancient recensions,
139; of Martial, 251; of Plautus,
261; as defined by F. A. Wolf, 122.

reclamantes, 84.

recto, 6, 84.

Regula S. Benedicti, text of, 109 sqq.

Renaissance in Italy, 97 sq.

Ribbeck, O., 156.

Ritschl, F., quoted, 23.

Roger, M., on Roman education in
Gaul, 75.

roll, of vellum, 1; reasons for its popu-
larity, 2; sizes of, 6; Alexandrine
standards, 9; effect of these on
literary composition, 8

Salisbury, John of, 70; on logic, 80;
on Bernard of Chartres, 70, 81.

Sallust, A. Gellius on text of, 50.

Salutati, 99; on corruption in texts,
103-4.

Scaliger on H. Stephanus, 117.

{
|

INDEX

scholasticism, 80.

scholasticus, 63.

scholia, 144; in papyri, 13.

scissurae, 5.

Scotti, s.v. Irish.

scr. =scripsit ef stm.

scrinium, 287.

Scripturale, 83.

Scylacaeum, 66.

secl. =seclusit ef sim.

Seneca, text of Naturales Quaestiones,
οι.

Seneca, Tommaso, on Tibullus, ror-2.

Servatus Lupus, 77.

sexternions, 84.

siglum, 286.

signs used in papyri, 12.

Silvester II, s.v. Gerbert.

Simon, R., Histoire critiquedu N.T., 121.

Simplicius, on δισσογραφία, 179.

σίττυβος, 14.

Solinus, text of, 124.

Sorbonne, 81.

Spain, learning in, 82.

sscr.=superscripsit, superscriptus εἶ
sim.

Statius, text of Si/uae, 136; editions
of Thebais, 137.

Stephanus, H., 117.

stichometrical numbers, 9 (note τὴ.

Strabo, on booksellers, rr ; on history
of Aristotle’s works, 207.

subscr. =subscripsit ef sz.

subscriptiones, 61, 63.

Suetonius’ life of Horace, 144.

suppl. =supplet e¢ sz.

supr. lin. =supra lineam, word or words
written above the line in the text.

Symmachi, 65.

Symmachus, commentary on Aristo-
phanes, 41.

synonyms, substitution of, 185.

Tassin and Toustain, Traité de Diplo-
matique, 113 (note).

Tatto, 100.

ternions, 84.

Tedxos=a roll, 15; =a codex, 2.

testimonia, I41.

texts, ‘protected’, 22; poetry pre-
served better than prose, 48-9;

363

tendency to normalize, 49; vulgate
texts at Rome, 56 ; accuracy of texts
in the time of Cicero, 57.

theca, 287.

Theognis, 46.

Theophrastus, his
papyrus, 5.

Tibullus, interpolations in, 102.

tr. =transponit et sz.

tragedy, its effect on the trade in
books, 27.

trai. =traicit δέ sim.

transcriptional probability, 139, 151,
153.

translations, 146; by the Humanists,
148.

transpositions, 176 ; causes of, 127.

Traversari, Ioo.

triads, 8.

Triclinius, D., 44.

Trivium, 72.

description of

umbilicus, 14.

unc. incl. = uncis (or uncinis) inclusi e¢
sim., i.e. something has_ been
bracketed out of a text.

ὑπόμνημα, 26, 47.

uulg. = uulgo, lectio uulgata.

Valerius Maximus, text of, 87.

Valla, L., r10, 148.

variants, antiquity of, 139.

vellum, price of, 16.

Venetian scholia to Homer, 33.

Vergil, text of, 58 ; codex Romanus,
163; Odo of Cluny on, 79. α

Verona, survival of learning at, 95;
discovery of MSS. at, 113.

verso, 6, 84.

visual errors, 154.

vulgate texts at Rome, 56; by H.
Stephanus, 117.

Walther, J. L., 113 (note’.

Wipo on German education, 97.

Wolf, F.A., 122; on punctuation, 173.

Wiirzburg, discovery of MSS. at, 113
(note).

Zielinski, 140.

‘

; OXFORD: HORACE HART M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

in ee

182739

ae yy, >
/ Fu ree "4 4 Pos y Ὁ
(δι, τς Ὁ, aN
f “ <>» Ai S
2 Ι ᾿ 4 «ἃ
ΚΣ » ἢ — at &y ; ΄ “Ν᾽
δὰ i i | Ι 5, φ > Sa
Yj | : i " ay
% | | 7 SY

RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
TOmep 202 Main Library
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE

. —— “αὶ — ζ
|

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

-.-

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720
tcl ΩΣ
i) Ri

Pe

cOe2e?90038

ULC. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

pa ed
ΨΩ

a EO Le
coer wre -=

oes ewer ~~
— oe

ae
pie Ne τὸ" -ο

eS συ πε tere πππτὸ
pa wee ee τε beer es ὦ τὸ Ht Hee

seen πο Ψν

Ν φϑνιασωνοση λἀρα --
atte νον

- = page OS --
a ee eet σῦν ον δα ous ger δηοορε.ο

mont ES δ δίας, tp eee eS oe
eg